United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION, DENYING REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY,
AND GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RE: ECF NO. 13
TIGAR United States District Judge
the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), or in the Alternative, to Transfer under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). ECF No. 13. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF
No. 27. The Court denies the motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to
the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
January 18, 2017, Plaintiff Dino Cortina filed a complaint
against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
(“AstraZeneca”), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
(“Bristol-Myers”), and McKesson Corporation
(“McKesson”). Cortina is a citizen and resident
of New York. ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. Bristol-Myers is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in New York.
Id. ¶ 9; ECF No. 13 at 11, n.5. AstraZeneca is
a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of
business in Delaware. ECF No. 1 ¶ 10. McKesson is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
California. Id. ¶ 11. The complaint alleges
that Saxagliptin, a prescription drug under the brands
Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR, causes heart failure, congestive
heart failure, cardiac failure, death from heart failure, and
other serious conditions to users who suffer from Type 2
diabetes, due to their increased cardiovascular risk. ECF No.
1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were involved with
aspects of bringing Saxagliptin to market, including, but not
limited to, the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
the prescription drug. Id ¶¶ 27-28, 33-35.
In addition, Plaintiff claims that Defendants refused to
warn, failed to warn, or “under-warned” about
Saxagliptin's risks, and engaged in “inadequate
clinical trials, testing and study, and inadequate reporting
regarding the results of the clinical trials, testing and
study.” Id ¶ 56.
April 24, 2017, Defendants filed the instant motion, arguing
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
claims with regard to AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers because
they are out-of-state defendants and Plaintiffs claims do not
arise from Defendants' conduct within California. ECF No.
13 at 9-10. In the alternative, Bristol-Myers, AstraZeneca,
and McKesson move to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York because
the Plaintiff resides in New York and does not allege any
connection to California. Id at 10.
opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, 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, the plaintiff need only
make a “prima facie showing” of personal
jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson,
911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). “Uncontroverted
allegations in the plaintiffs complaint must be taken as
true.” Id Where there are “[c]onflicts
between the parties over statements contained in affidavits,
” they “must be resolved in the plaintiffs
favor.” Id (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)).
a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant, the laws of the forum state must provide a basis
for exercising personal jurisdiction, and the assertion of
personal jurisdiction must comport with due process.
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d
1066, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2011). Because
“California's long-arm statute is co-extensive with
federal standards, . . . a federal court may exercise
personal jurisdiction if doing so comports with federal
constitutional due process.” Id (citing
Panavision Int'l L.P. v. Toppen, 141 F.3d 1316,
1320 (9th Cir. 1998)).
are two types of personal jurisdiction: “general or
all-purpose” and “specific or case-linked.”
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564
U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 nn.8-9
(1984)). When a defendant's affiliations with the forum
state are so “continuous and systematic” as to
render the defendant “at home” in the state, a
court may assert general jurisdiction to “hear any and
all claims” against that defendant. Id.
jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an affiliatio[n]
between the forum and the underlying controversy, principal,
activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State
and is therefore subject to the State's
regulation.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919
(internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast to general
jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is also “confined
to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with,
the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In other
words, specific jurisdiction “focuses on the
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the
litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115,
1121 (2014). The Ninth Circuit has established a
“three-prong test for analyzing a claim of specific
(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
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (quoting Lake v.
Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The
plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs
of the test.” Id. (citing Sher, 911
F.2d at 1361). If the plaintiff succeeds in doing so,
“the burden then shifts to the defendant to
'present a compelling case' that the exercise of
jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id.
(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 477 (1985)).