United States District Court, C.D. California
LONGYU INTERNATIONAL INC.
E-LOT ELECTRONICS RECYCLING INC.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (Dkt. 8, filed November 14, 2013)
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of May 5, 2014, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2013, plaintiff Longyu International Inc. ("Longyu") filed a complaint against defendants E-Lot Electronics Recycling Inc. ("E-Lot"), Morris Freedman, and Anthony Dawson. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) breach of warranty; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. In brief, plaintiff avers that in early 2012, it purchased four containers of scrap metal and materials from E-Lot, but discovered after the material was shipped to China that the material was of substandard quality.
On November 14, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of New York. Dkt. 8. On December 2, 2013, plaintiff filed its opposition. Dkt. 10. On December 19, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. 11. On April 2, 2014, plaintiff filed its brief summarizing the results of the jurisdictional discovery, dkt. 17, and on April 9, 2014, defendants filed their brief on the results of that discovery, dkt. 18. After considering the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Personal Jurisdiction
California's long-arm jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements, so that the jurisdictional analysis under state law and federal due process are the same. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10; Roth v. Garcia Marquez , 942 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 1991). In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must have "minimum contacts" with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Depending on the nature of the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, personal jurisdiction is characterized as either general or specific. A court has general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when that defendant's activities within the forum state are "substantial" or "continuous and systematic, " even if the cause of action is "unrelated to the defendant's forum activities." Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. , 342 U.S. 437, 446-47 (1952); Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc. , 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977).
The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is "fairly high" and requires that the defendant's contacts be substantial enough to approximate physical presence. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc. , 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). "Factors to be taken into consideration are whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state's markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there." Id . (finding no general jurisdiction when the corporation was not registered or licensed to do business in California, paid no taxes, maintained no bank accounts, and targeted no advertising toward California). Occasional sales to residents of the forum state are insufficient to create general jurisdiction. See Brand v. Menlove Dodge , 796 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1986).
A court may assert specific jurisdiction over a claim for relief that arises out of a defendant's forum-related activities. Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc. , 987 F.2d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 1993). The test for specific personal jurisdiction has three parts:
(1) The defendant must perform an act or consummate a transaction within the forum, purposefully availing himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum and invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
The claim must arise out of or result from the defendant's ...