Halbur v. Kudla et al
Filing
13
ORDER denying 9 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or alternatively to Transfer the action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/8/13.(DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Nicolle Halbur, acting for and on behalf of
MRS 1 Corp., f/k/a Adult Beverage
Company, Inc., a Nevada Corporation,
No. CV12-01120-PHX-DGC
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
Jeff Kudla and Tracy Reinhardt,
14
Defendants,
15
and
16
MRS 1 Corp., f/k/a Adult Beverage
Company, Inc., a Nevada Corporation,
17
Nominal Defendant.
18
19
Defendants Jeff Kudla and Tracy Reinhardt have filed a motion to dismiss this
20
corporate derivative action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or, in the
21
alternative, to transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Doc. 9. Plaintiff Nicolle
22
Halbur filed a response. Doc. 12. Defendants did not file a reply, and the motion is ripe
23
for review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.1
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been
fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).
1
I.
Background.
2
The following facts are taken from the complaint and are presumed to be true for
3
purposes of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was at all relevant times a shareholder and
4
director of MRS 1 Corp. f/k/a Adult Bevarage Company, Inc (“ABCO”), a Nevada
5
corporation authorized to do business in Arizona. Id., ¶¶ 1-2. Defendants Kudla and
6
Reinhardt (collectively “Defendants”) were also directors and shareholders of ABCO.
7
Id., ¶ 11. Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona, and Defendants are residents of Orange
8
County, California. Id., ¶¶ 4-5.
9
Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2012, Defendants made several bank
10
withdrawals, totaling over $300,000 and draining ABCO’s corporate account, without the
11
required unanimous consent and approval of the ABCO board of directors. Id., ¶¶ 15-17.
12
Thereafter, Defendants held an improperly-noticed board meeting in which they
13
purportedly ratified their self-distributions, conveyed a 5% ownership interest in ABCO
14
to Reinhardt’s brother, and stripped Plaintiff of her responsibilities for maintaining
15
ABCO’s corporate finances. Id., ¶¶ 19-26. Defendants then ignored repeated emails
16
from Plaintiff and ABCO’s corporate counsel questioning their actions and demanding
17
the return of the corporate funds. Id., ¶¶ 27-32. ABCO continues to owe Plaintiff an
18
outstanding balance of $137,000 for personal loans she made to the corporation that it is
19
now unable to repay due to Defendants’ misappropriations. Id., ¶¶ 33-35. Plaintiff
20
makes claims for breach of fiduciary duty (per Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.138); improper
21
distribution (per Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.288(2)); conversion of corporate assets;
22
constructive fraud; and unjust enrichment, and requests an accounting of the
23
misappropriated funds. Id., ¶¶ 37-64.
24
II.
Discussion.
25
A.
Personal Jurisdiction.
26
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See, e.g. Zigler v.
27
Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the Court is resolving
28
the motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need make only a
-2-
1
prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion.” Ballard v. Savage,
2
65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). That is, Plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if
3
true would support jurisdiction over [Defendants].” Id.; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v.
4
Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Where . . . the district court
5
does not hold an evidentiary hearing but rather decides the jurisdictional issue on the
6
basis of the pleadings and supporting declarations, we will presume that the facts set forth
7
therein can be proven.”). Disputed facts must be decided in Plaintiff’s favor. See Doe v.
8
Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001).
9
Because there is no federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in this case,
10
Arizona’s long-arm rule applies. See Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 559
11
(9th Cir. 1995).
12
jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of federal due process.” Doe v. Am. Nat’l Red
13
Cross, 112 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Batton v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins.
14
Co., 736 P.2d 2, 4 (Ariz. 1987)). Federal due process requires that a defendant have
15
sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state that the exercise of personal jurisdiction
16
will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Int’l Shoe Co.
17
v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(a) “provides for personal
18
The Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test for specific jurisdiction.
19
jurisdiction exists if (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of
20
conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its
21
laws, (2) the claim arises out of the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the
22
exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See, e.g., Bancroft & Masters, Inc. 223 F.3d at
23
1086; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-76 (1985). The Court will
24
address each of these three factors.
25
1.
Such
Purposeful Availment.
26
In cases arising out of contractual relationships, including those involving related
27
tort claims, the Ninth Circuit applies the “purposeful availment” test enunciated in
28
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958), which “requires that the defendant engage
-3-
1
in some form of affirmative conduct allowing or promoting the transaction of business
2
within the forum state. This focus on the defendant’s affirmative conduct is designed to
3
ensure that the defendant is not haled into court as the result of random, fortuitous, or
4
attenuated contacts.’” Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.
5
1990) (citation omitted); see Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 1991)
6
(applying purposeful availment test in breach of contract action); McGlinchy v. Shell
7
Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 817 (9th Cir. 1988). A defendant has engaged in affirmative
8
conduct and thereby “purposely availed himself of the benefits of a forum if he has
9
deliberately ‘engaged in significant activities within a State or has created ‘continuing
10
obligations’ between himself and the residents of the forum.’” Gray, 913 F.2d at 760
11
(quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76); see Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130
12
F.3d 414, 417 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “the ‘purposeful availment’ requirement is
13
satisfied if the defendant has taken deliberate action within the forum state or if he has
14
created continuing obligations to forum residents”) (citing Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1498).
15
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has wholly failed to allege facts to establish that
16
each defendant purposefully directed its activities at Arizona. Doc. 9 at 6. Defendants
17
cite to Defendant Kudla’s declaration, asserting that he became an investor and director
18
of ABCO based on discussions with Defendant Reinhardt that took place in California
19
where, he asserts, ABCO was headquartered. Doc. 9 at 4. Kudla attests that Plaintiff
20
handled a small amount of ABCO’s accounting from her home in Arizona, but Kudla was
21
told he would have access to all accounting records. Id. at 4-5. He also attests that while
22
serving as Executive Vice President of ABCO, he secured corporate counsel and a
23
trademark attorney from Irvine, California, both of whom were instructed to identify
24
Newport Beach, California, as ABCO’s principle place of business; and that, beginning
25
in 2010, ABCO began leasing an office in Newport Beach, California, later moving to a
26
larger corporate headquarters in Costa Mesa, California, at which locations ABCO
27
coordinated marketing, engaged in product development, conducted business meetings
28
with outside venders and contractors, and housed employees, including its President and
-4-
1
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President, and Vice President of Sales and
2
Marketing. Id.
3
Plaintiff cites to her own declaration stating that she, an Arizona resident, provided
4
the start-up capital for ABCO and began meeting with distributors and wholesalers to
5
develop a business plan based on an alcoholic drink Reinhardt concocted, and that Kudla
6
and Reinhardt flew to Arizona to meet with her about running the business and to hand-
7
deliver Kudla’s initial investment check. Doc. 12 at 3; 12-1, Decl. of Nicolle Halbur, at
8
2-4, ¶¶ 5, 7-11. Plaintiff’s declaration further states that ABCO opened its first Arizona
9
office in Chandler, Arizona, in 2010, while the office in California was only a mail drop
10
box, and hired two full-time employees who, together with Plaintiff, worked in the
11
Arizona office and performed 95% of ABCO’s work. Id. at 4, ¶¶ 12-14. Due to the high
12
volume of work flowing through this office, Plaintiff attests that ABCO later leased a
13
larger office in Chandler which became its principle place of business, housing all of its
14
business records and files, and it was the address of record for ABCO’s bank accounts,
15
insurance policies, cell phones, and company car. Id. at 4-5, ¶¶ 15-16. Plaintiff attests
16
that ABCO had a designated statutory agent authorized to accept process in Arizona, it
17
paid Arizona state taxes, and Plaintiff regularly directed, controlled, and coordinated
18
many or most of ABCO’s business activities from the Arizona office. Id. at 5, ¶ 17; 5-6,
19
¶ 18 (enumerating business activities conducted from the Arizona office, including
20
purchasing raw materials, managing orders, staffing promotional events, and overseeing
21
payroll and benefits).
22
Defendants knowingly created obligations between themselves and an Arizona resident,
23
and that as directors of ABCO they purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of
24
doing business in Arizona. At most, Defendants’ contrary contentions present an issue of
25
fact about where ABCO was headquartered or had its principle place of business.
26
2.
Taken as true, these allegations are sufficient to show that
“Arising Out of.”
27
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a “but for” test for determining whether a cause of
28
action arises out of a defendant’s forum-related activities. See Omeluk v. Langstein Slip
-5-
1
& Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1995). The “arising out of” requirement is
2
met if, “but for” the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, the cause of
3
action would not have arisen. See Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 561 (9th
4
Cir. 1995). All of Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendants’ alleged misappropriation of
5
funds from ABCO’s Arizona-based bank account. These funds allegedly resulted from
6
activities performed principally in Arizona, the records of which were maintained in
7
ABCO’s Arizona office. Plaintiff’s causes of action would, therefore, not have arisen but
8
for the contacts between Defendants and Arizona.
9
3.
Reasonableness.
10
An unreasonable exercise of jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clause even if
11
the “purposeful availment” and “arising out of” requirements are satisfied. See Int’l
12
Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316; Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 474-75. A district court presumes, however,
13
that its exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant is reasonable if these two requirements
14
are met. See Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1500. The burden then shifts to the defendant to
15
“‘present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render
16
jurisdiction unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477).
17
The Ninth Circuit considers seven factors to determine whether the exercise of
18
specific jurisdiction over a defendant is reasonable: (1) the extent of the defendant’s
19
purposeful interjection into the forum state, (2) the burden on the defendant of litigating
20
in the forum, (3) the extent of conflicts with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state,
21
(4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, (5) the most efficient judicial
22
resolution of the dispute, (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in
23
convenient and effective relief, and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. See Ziegler,
24
64 F.3d at 475 (citing Terracom, 49 F.3d at 561); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
25
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980) (listing several of the seven factors).
26
Defendants do not discuss any of the above-listed factors to show that jurisdiction
27
in this Court would be unreasonable. In putting forth reasons to transfer pursuant to 28
28
U.S.C. § 1404, Defendants argue that it would be inconvenient to Defendants to litigate
-6-
1
in Arizona because Defendants and all potential non-party witnesses reside in the Central
2
District of California. Doc. 9 at 10-11. Plaintiff counters that a significant number of
3
party and non-party witnesses reside in Arizona, including Plaintiff, ABCO’s two
4
Arizona employees, ABCO’s vendors, banking contacts, and other third parties. Doc. 12
5
at 16-17. In light of the fact that the Court must evaluate Defendants’ burden against the
6
corresponding burden to Plaintiff (see Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F. 2d 1070, 1075
7
(9th Cir. 1986)), the Court cannot conclude that this factor weighs against jurisdiction.
8
The remaining factors weigh in favor of jurisdiction.
As already discussed,
9
Plaintiff has alleged facts showing that Defendants, through their involvement as
10
directors of ABCO, engaged in extensive purposeful interjection into Arizona.
11
Defendants give no reasons why litigating this suit in Arizona would conflict with
12
California’s sovereignty or lead to less judicial efficiency. Jurisdiction in this Court also
13
serves both the interest of the forum state in adjudicating an issue involving an Arizona-
14
based corporation and Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief.
15
Even if an alternative forum is available in the Central District of California, Defendants
16
have failed to present a compelling case that personal jurisdiction in Arizona would be
17
unreasonable.
18
Defendants.
The Court concludes that it has specific personal jurisdiction over
19
B.
Venue.
20
Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed for improper venue. Doc. 8 at
21
14. The Court finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides
22
that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
23
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that
24
is the subject of the action is situated.” Both factors are met here. Although Defendants
25
allegedly conducted their improper money transfers and improperly-noticed meeting in
26
California, Plaintiff alleges that the money transfers were directed at ABCO’s Arizona
27
bank account and that Defendants’ misrepresentations about the meeting were directed at
28
her in Arizona. Doc. 12-1, ¶¶ 25-26. The fact that these alleged improper actions were
-7-
1
directed at Arizona, making it the “locus of the injury,” is sufficient to show that a
2
substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Arizona. Myers
3
v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding where one of the
4
plaintiffs’ alleged “harms” was felt in Nevada, that “a substantial part of the events
5
giving rise to the claim occurred in Nevada.”); Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Borodkin, No.
6
CV-11-1426-PHX-GMS, 2012 WL 692976, at *7 (D. Ariz., March 1, 2012) (citing
7
Myers). As discussed above, Plaintiff also alleges that the property at issue – in excess of
8
$300,000 – was held in ABCO’s Arizona bank account and that Arizona is where the
9
business was headquartered and where all of its relevant financial records were held.
10
These facts, taken as true, are sufficient to establish proper venue.
11
C.
Transfer.
12
Defendants ask the Court to transfer this action to the Central District of California
13
because a balance of convenience to the parties strongly favors transfer. Doc. 9 at 10.
14
“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
15
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
16
brought.” 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(a). The district court may consider several factors in
17
determining whether to transfer venue, including the plaintiff=s choice of forum, the
18
extent of the parties’ contacts with the forum, the contacts in the forum relating to the
19
plaintiff's cause of action, the availability of non-party witnesses, and the accessibility of
20
evidence. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).
21
Defendants argue that the location of potential witnesses, the residences of the
22
parties, and the location of the operative events all favor transfer. Doc. 9 at 10-11. As
23
previously discussed, the location of potential witness and parties neither favors nor
24
weighs against transfer because at least one party and a number of potential witnesses
25
reside in each state. To the extent that Defendants are inconvenienced by having to
26
defend claims in Arizona, they have not presented any facts, beyond the mere fact of their
27
residence, showing that the inconvenience of having to litigate in a neighboring state is
28
sufficiently onerous to override Plaintiff’s choice of forum. See Decker Coal Co. v.
-8-
1
Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The defendant must
2
make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of
3
forum.”).
4
California, this argument conflicts with Plaintiff’s allegations that the Court must take as
5
true. On the whole, Defendants have failed to show that the convenience of the parties
6
and witnesses and the interest of justice will best be served by transfer to the Central
7
District of California.
8
9
10
Finally, although Defendants argue that all operative events occurred in
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer
this action (Doc. 9) is denied.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2013.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?