United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION RE: ECF NO. 11
JONS.
TIGAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant
Auk Ta Shaa Discovery, LLC’s has moved to dismiss the
complaint in this breach of contract action. ECF No. 11. Auk
Ta Shaa moves to dismiss on several grounds, including
failure of the parties to agree on the terms of the contract;
violation of the statute of frauds; violation of the parol
evidence rule; lack of damages; and lack of personal
jurisdiction. Because the Court concludes that it lacks
personal jurisdiction over Defendant, it will grant the
motion on that ground alone without reaching
Defendant’s other arguments.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
February 16, 2016, Plaintiff Lil’ Man in the Boat, Inc.
filed this action against Defendant Auk Ta Shaa Discovery,
LLC in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleging breach of
contract. ECF No. 1-1 at 6. In its form complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that it accepted a counter offer submitted by
Defendant on December 31, 2015 for the sale of the vessel
“Queen of Seattle, ” USCG #667926, for the sum of
$12, 500. Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims that Defendant
has refused to deliver the vessel to Plaintiff and has
promised to sell it to another company in violation of the
parties’ agreement. Id.
On
March 24, 2016, Defendant removed the case to federal court.
ECF No. 1. On April 14, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6),
ECF No. 11, which motion the Court now considers.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
When a
defendant objects to the Court’s personal jurisdiction
over it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),
the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that
jurisdiction is proper. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539
F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Absent an evidentiary
hearing, however, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction. Id. Uncontroverted
allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint must be taken
as true, and “[c]onflicts between the parties over
statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the
plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (quoting
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d
797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)).
“Where,
as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing
personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of
the state in which the district court sits.”
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800. “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.” Id. at 800-01. The
relevant question, therefore, is whether non-resident
Defendant Auk Ta Shaa Discovery has “at least
‘minimum contacts’ with [California] such that
the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.’” Id. at 801 (quoting
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,
316 (1945)).
There
are two types of personal jurisdiction: “general or
all-purpose” and “specific or case-linked.”
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131
S.Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). General jurisdiction permits
jurisdiction over a defendant even when the claims at issue
do not arise from or relate to activity in that forum.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473
n.15 (1985). A court may assert general personal jurisdiction
over defendants “when their affiliations with the State
are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render
them essentially at home in the forum State.”
Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2851 (quoting Int’l
Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317).
“Specific
jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliation
between the forum and the underlying controversy,
principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in
the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s
regulation.” Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2851
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has
established a three-part test to determine whether a court
has specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he
purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to
the defendant’s forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. “The
plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs
of the test.” Id. If the plaintiff does so,
“the burden then shifts to the defendant to
‘present a compelling case’ that the ...