United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [Re: ECF Nos.9, 30]
LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
declaratory relief action, Defendant Redzone Wireless, LLC
(“Redzone”) moves to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and lack of a case or controversy, or
alternatively to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine. Mot., 9. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, and thus declines to address the
remaining issues raised in Redzone's motion.
March 2015, Redzone, which is incorporated and has its
principal place of business in Maine, reached out to
declaratory judgment Plaintiff Netgear, Inc.
(“Netgear”), which is incorporated in Delaware
and has its principal place of business in California, to
inquire whether an inventory of Netgear routers were
available for purchase. Ex. 1 to Notice of Removal
(“Compl.”) ¶ 10, ECF 1; Mot. 7, 9. Netgear
had manufactured the routers pursuant to specifications of a
different wireless carrier, which Netgear told Redzone.
Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11. To assist Redzone in determining
whether the routers were compatible with its network, Netgear
sent samples to Redzone for testing. Id. ¶ 11.
Netgear informed Redzone that were it to purchase the
routers, they would be sold “as is” with no
further modifications or support. Id.
Redzone determined that the routers were compatible with its
network, the parties negotiated an agreement whereby Redzone
agreed to purchase routers from Netgear. Id.
¶¶ 12-13. On April 6, 2015, the parties executed
Netgear's Standard Terms and Conditions Agreement
(“T&C Agreement”). Id. ¶ 13;
Ex. A to Compl. (“T&C Agreement”), ECF 1.
Approximately three weeks later, on April 28, 2015, the
parties entered into a Redzone Wireless Custom LG6100 SKU
Side Letter (“Side Letter Agreement”), which
obligated the parties to terms in addition to the T&C
Agreement. Compl. ¶ 14; Ex. B to Compl. (“Side
Letter Agreement”), ECF 1. Redzone took delivery of the
routers in June 2015, and subsequently began installing them
in customers' homes. Compl. ¶ 16.
the time Redzone tested the routers for compatibility with
its network and began installing them in its customers'
homes, Redzone made significant alterations to its wireless
system. Id. Once Redzone installed the routers, it
began receiving complaints of connectivity drops from its
customers. Id. Redzone alerted Netgear of the issue
on July 16, 2015, and requested a solution. Id.
was unable to discover the root cause of the connectivity
issues, but nonetheless provided patches for the router
firmware in November and December 2015, even though it
contends it was not contractually required to do so.
Id. ¶ 17. Netgear alleges that Redzone
continued to demand that it provide additional support for
the routers, and thus Netgear brought this declaratory
judgment suit seeking a declaration that it is not obligated
to devote further time and resources to the connectivity
issues being experienced by Redzone's customers.
Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
now moves to dismiss this action for lack of personal
jurisdiction and lack of a case or controversy. Mot. 2.
Alternatively, Redzone asks the Court to transfer the action
to the District Court for the District of Maine. Netgear
opposes the motion. Opp'n, ECF 20.
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
first argues that the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over it, and therefore, the action cannot be
maintained in this Court. Mot. 4. Netgear contends, however,
that this Court may exercise specific jurisdiction over
Redzone. Opp'n 4.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) authorizes a defendant to
seek dismissal of an action for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). “Where, as here,
the defendant's 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.” Ranza v. Nike,
Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he plaintiff
cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its
complaint.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). However,
uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are accepted as
true, and factual disputes created by conflicting affidavits
are resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Id.
no applicable federal statute governs personal jurisdiction,
“the law of the state in which the district court sits
applies.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc.
v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th
Cir. 2003). “California's long-arm statute allows
courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants to
the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution.” Id. “[D]ue process
requires that the defendant ‘have certain minimum
contacts' with the forum state ‘such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.'”
Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 (quoting Int'l Shoe
Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).