United States District Court, S.D. California
SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC./OBAYASHI CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
OFFICINE MECCANICHE GALLETTI-O.M.G. S.R.L., et al., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [ECF No. 44]
CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), Defendants Robert W. Ober and Robert Ober & Associates, Inc. ("ROA") move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The remaining defendants have not joined in this motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation ("SOJV") opposes.
The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff summarizes the nature of this action as follows in its Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"):
This action arises out of the failure of Robert W. Ober and his corporate entities' to design and provide a conforming concrete batch plant to SOJV and, further, the Sicoma-related entities' manufacture, sale, and delivery of defective and nonconforming concrete mixers to SOJV for use in the construction of the San Vincente dam-raise project. The nonconformities of the batch plant Mr. Ober and his corporate entities designed and provided have caused substantial damages to SOJV. Likewise, the defective and nonconforming concrete mixers, which are one component of the batch plant, have caused significant damages to SOJV. Consequently, SOJV seeks monetary and equitable relief.
(CAC ¶ 1.) In April 2010, Plaintiff "entered into a contract with the San Diego County Water Authority for the construction of the San Vincente Dam-Raise Project[, ]" which required raising the height of the dam by 117 feet. ( Id. ¶¶ 45-49.) According to Plaintiff, "[t]o produce a sufficient amount of concrete to timely complete the construction of the dam, SOJV required a batch plant capable of producing at least six compacted cubic yards of [roller-compacted concrete ("RCC")] output per batch." ( Id. ¶ 49.)
In June 2010, Plaintiff executed the first contract with Mr. Ober, apparently on behalf of Plant Outfitters, LLC, for the purchase of components needed for the batch plant that incorporated a proposal with various obligations related to the mixers among other things. (CAC ¶¶ 74-83; CAC Ex. 3.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff executed the second contract "for a comprehensive design package for a customized RCC conveyor system" with "RS1 Holdings, Inc. dba Plant Architects and Plant Outfitters (Plant Architects)." (CAC ¶ 85; CAC Ex. 4.) The Sicoma Defendants-which consist of Officine Meccaniche Galletti-O.M.G. S.r.l. ("OMG"), Societa Italiana Construzione Macchine S.r.l. ("Sicoma Italy"), and Sicoma North America, Inc.-are parties to this action because they allegedly "manufactured the concrete mixers and wear parts for the concrete mixers (i.e., parts that are expected to wear over time due to use)[.]" (CAC ¶¶ 5-15.)
On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action against Sicoma North America. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed another complaint in the Orange County Superior Court against Mr. Ober, ROA, RS1 Holdings, Plant Architects, LLC, and Plant Outfitters (collectively, "Ober Defendants"), which was eventually removed to federal court.
On June 9, 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate the two aforementioned actions with this action as the lead case and later-filed action as the member case. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint. In responding to the CAC, Sicoma North America filed its answer and counterclaim to the consolidated amended complaint, and OMG and Sicoma Italy also filed their answer.
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint asserts causes of action that range from breach of contract, breaches of warranties, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. There are six causes of action asserted against the Ober Defendants and four asserted against the Sicoma Defendants. Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When the parties dispute whether personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is proper, "the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Rios Props. Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). In ruling on the motion, the "court may consider evidence presented in affidavits to assist in its determination and may order discovery on the jurisdictional issues." Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make "a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss." Bryton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 575 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2009). "In determining whether the plaintiff has met this burden, the Court must take the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and resolve the disputed jurisdictional facts in the plaintiff's favor." Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 89 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (citing Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995)). A prima facie showing means that "the plaintiff need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant." Unocal, 248 F.3d at 922.
"The general rule is that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if it is permitted by a long-arm statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal due process." Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Both the California and federal long-arm statutes require compliance with due-process requirements. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2); Pebble Beach, ...