Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corcera Solutions, LLC v. Razor, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

February 14, 2014

RAZOR, INC., SAGO NETWORKS, LLC, et al., Defendants.


PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

The merits of this case concern an alleged breach of contract. Defendant Sago Networks, LLC, argues that this court does not have the jurisdiction over it, such that the court may not reach those merits. Sago therefore brings the instant motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Torrey Point Group, LLC, believes that by virtue of acquiring Defendant Razor, Inc., Sago subjected itself to personal jurisdiction in California. Having considered the papers and the arguments of counsel, the court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to give rise to more than a "hunch" that Sago may have clients in California. Without even this minimal showing, the court cannot authorize a fishing expedition through Sago's client base in search of a jurisdictional hook and therefore grants the motion.


On April 12, 2012, Razor's President, Matthew Kelly, placed an order with Torrey Point for $29, 867 worth of computer parts, [1] and in December, 2012, Kelly placed a further order for $216, 982 worth of computer equipment.[2] Even though the goods for each order were shipped by Torrey and received by Razor, no payment has yet been tendered.[3]

Between April and July, 2013, Torrey Point contacted Razor numerous times attempting to collect payment.[4] On July 30, 2013, Torrey Point was finally informed that "Sago Network is the owner of Razor Servers now. You will need to contact them."[5] After Torrey Point's efforts to collect from Sago went nowhere, on November 1, 2013, Torrey Point filed this suit against both Razor and Sago.

Disputing personal jurisdiction, Sago, has submitted a sworn declaration indicating that it never acquired Razor nor any physical assets Razor owned.[6] Sago claims that it merely purchased the customer base and Razor's assistance in migrating those customers to Sago's existing infrastructure in Florida and Georgia.[7] Although the purchase agreement reinforces these representations, [8] in response, Torrey Point highlights Sago's advertising contacts with California-based corporations and its relationship with Razor's former clients, some of whom it believes may be located in California.[9]


A. Personal Jurisdiction

"In a motion challenging personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court, has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists."[10] If the court has not conducted an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff "need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts."[11] At this stage of the proceeding, uncontroverted facts contained in the complaint are taken as true, and conflicts "between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor."[12]

"Where, as here, there is no federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction, the Court must apply the law of the state in which it sits."[13] In this case, because "California's long-arm jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the same."[14] That is, for this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, each "must have at least minimum contacts' with the relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"[15] "A federal court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant."[16] General jurisdiction exists where a defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state such that the defendant may be "haled into court in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world."[17] "Specific jurisdiction is more limited in scope and can be exercised where the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, and the plaintiff's claims arise out of those contacts."[18]

B. Jurisdictional Discovery

Fed. R. Evid. 26(d)(2) allows a court to authorize expedited discovery for "convenience and in the interests of justice." The standard for authorizing expedited discovery is "good cause." "Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party."[19]

In the Ninth Circuit, "[a] district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny [jurisdictional] discovery."[20] Such discovery "should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary."[21] A court may grant jurisdictional discovery if the request is based on more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts, "[22] or more than "bare allegations in the face of specific denials."[23] In Laub, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of jurisdictional discovery where there was a "reasonable probability" that the outcome of the motion to dismiss would be different if discovery were permitted.[24]

In light of Laub, courts in this district have held that a plaintiff need not make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction before it can obtain jurisdictional discovery.[25] Rather a plaintiff must present only a "colorable basis" for jurisdiction, or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.