Kazanjian Bros., Inc. v. Neila Jaziri et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (shb)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAZANJIAN BROS., INC., a
California corporation,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

NEILA JAZIRI; NEILA VINTAGE
& DESIGN; ART WORLD,

16

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-05625 DDP (ASx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION
[Dkt. No. 8]

17
18

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

19

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion”).

20

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES the

21

Motion and adopts the following order.

22

I.

23

(Dkt. No. 8.)

BACKGROUND
Kazanjian Bros., Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is a California

24

corporation that operates a high-end jewelry business.

25

to Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), Dkt. No. 11, at 1.)

26

operates a store and showroom in Beverly Hills, California.

27

Defendant Neila Jaziri (“Jaziri”) is a French citizen residing in

28

Paris, France.

(Mot. at 3.)

(Opposition

Plaintiff
(Id.)

Jaziri is the sole manager and owner

1

of Art World and Neila Vintage & Design (collectively with Jaziri,

2

“Defendants”).

3

organized in France with its principal place of business in Paris,

4

France.

5

boutique business in Paris, France known as Neila Vintage & Design.

6

(Id.)

(Id.)

(Id.)

Art World is a business registered and

Art World operates a retail vintage fashion

7

Plaintiff alleges the parties have developed a mutually

8

beneficial relationship based on the sale and purchase of high-end

9

jewelry, where Plaintiffs would sell Defendants items for resale to

10

Defendants’ international clientele.

11

relationship began in August 2011 and went through 2013.

12

6.)

13

alleges Defendants purchased a platinum necklace from Defendants in

14

August 2011 and a sapphire ring from Defendants in September 2011.

15

(Id. at 5.)

16

Plaintiff alleges, the parties exchanged over 500 emails.

17

Defendants also came to Plaintiff’s store in Beverly Hills on April

18

27, 2012, to look at jewelry pieces in person. (Id. at 5-6.)

19

Although Defendants claim that all contact concerning the sale of

20

any piece of jewelry was initiated by Plaintiff and that Defendants

21

never viewed jewelry in person in California (see Declaration of

22

Neila Jaziri (“Jaziri Decl.”), Dkt. No. 9-1, ¶¶ 12, 14, 15),

23

Plaintiff claims that Defendants reached out to Plaintiff multiple

24

times to inquire whether Plaintiff had particular items for sale.

25

(Opp. at 6-8.)

26

(Opp. at 5-6.)

This
(Id. at

Prior to the transaction at issue in this case, Plaintiff

During the course of this business relationship,
(Id.)

The present dispute concerns Plaintiff’s sale of a Van Cleef &

27

Arpels diamond bracelet (“the bracelet”) to Defendants.

28

alleges Defendant agreed to purchase the bracelet from Plaintiff on
2

Plaintiff

1

June 11, 2013, for the sum of $660,000.

2

Plaintiff’s agent delivered the bracelet to Defendants in Paris,

3

France.

4

Plaintiff’s bank account in Beverly Hills, CA.

5

signed an invoice that stated the purchase price was $660,000.

6

(Id. at 2-3; Exh. A to Declaration of Jasmine Rafati (“Rafati

7

Decl.”), Dkt. No. 11-2.)

8
9

(Id.)

(Id. at 2.)

On that date,

The payments were to be made in two installments to
(Id.)

Defendants

Plaintiff alleges Defendants never made the payments as
scheduled.

(Id. at 3.)

Instead, Plaintiff states, during several

10

months of dialogue over the payments, Defendants finally made two

11

wire transfers to Plaintiff’s bank account totaling $200,000.

12

(Id. at 3-4.)

13

made on April 18, 2014.

14

The last payment Plaintiff allegedly received was
(Id. at 4.)

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in California

15

Superior Court (“Complaint”), stating causes of action for breach

16

of written and oral contract, fraud, conversion, and trespass to

17

chattels.

18

single transaction detailed above - Plaintiff’s sale of the

19

bracelet to Defendants.

20

this action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction.

21

No. 1.)

22

personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

12(b)(2).

24

II.

25

(Dkt. No. 1-1.)

All causes of action arise from the

Id.

On July 21, 2014, Defendants removed
(Dkt.

Defendants now move to dismiss the action for lack of

(Dkt. No. 8.)

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides that a court

26

may dismiss a suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

27

plaintiff has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.

28

See Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).
3

The

Where,

1

as here, the motion is based on written materials rather than an

2

evidentiary hearing, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie

3

showing of jurisdictional facts.”

4

Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126, 128 (9th Cir. 1977); Pebble

5

Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).

6

the plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its

7

complaint, uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be

8

taken as true.”

9

797, 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citation

Caruth v. International

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d

10

omitted).

11

affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.

12

“Although

Conflicts between parties over statements contained in
Id.

District courts have the power to exercise personal

13

jurisdiction to the extent authorized by the law of the state in

14

which they sit.

15

v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998).

16

California’s long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction

17

coextensive with the Due Process Clause of the United States

18

Constitution, see Cal. Civ. Code § 410.10, this Court may exercise

19

personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when that

20

defendant has “at least ‘minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum

21

such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend traditional

22

notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”

23

374 F.3d at 800-01 (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.

24

310, 316 (1945)).

25

nature that the defendants could reasonably expect to be “haled

26

into court there.”

27

297 (1980).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); Panavision Int’l, L.P.
Because

Schwarzenegger,

The contacts must be of such a quality and

World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286,

28
4

1

There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general and

2

specific.

3

Cir. 1995).

4

over a defendant when the defendant’s contacts are “so continuous

5

and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum

6

state.”

7

2846, 2851 (2011) (internal quotations omitted).

8
9

Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1391 (9th
A court may exercise general personal jurisdiction

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct.

Specific personal jurisdiction may be found when the cause of
action arises out of the defendant’s contact or activities in the

10

forum state.

See Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620 (9th

11

Cir. 1991).

The Ninth Circuit has set forth the following three-

12

pronged test to determine whether specific personal jurisdiction

13

exists: “(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct

14

his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or

15

resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully

16

avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the

17

forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

18

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the

19

defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of

20

jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice,

21

i.e. it must be reasonable.”

22

(9th Cir. 1986).

23

first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to

24

“present a compelling case” that the court’s assertion of

25

jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

26

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985).

27

///

28

///

Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421

If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing the

5

Burger King Corp. v.

1
2

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court does not have general

3

personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

(Opp. at 8.)

The sole

4

issue is whether the Court has specific jurisdiction over

5

Defendants.

6

A. Purposeful Availment or Purposeful Direction

7

The first prong of the specific jurisdiction test is satisfied

8

by either purposeful availment or purposeful direction.

These are

9

two distinct concepts: “A purposeful availment analysis is most

10

often used in suits sounding in contract.

11

analysis, on the other hand, is most often used in suits sounding

12

in tort.”

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (internal citations

13

omitted).

The Ninth Circuit has held that the first prong of the

14

specific jurisdiction test “may be satisfied by purposeful

15

availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by

16

purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some

17

combination thereof.”

18

L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006).

19

A purposeful direction

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et

The parties appear to dispute which test should apply.

In

20

their Motion, Defendants contend that the purposeful direction

21

analysis applies.

22

papers, argues that both the purposeful direction and the

23

purposeful availment tests apply and are satisfied.

24

(Mot. at 6.)

Plaintiff, in its opposition

(Opp. at 11.)

Here, because Plaintiff’s intentional tort claims arise out of

25

the contract for the necklace, the Court will apply the purposeful

26

availment test.

27

1990) (applying the purposeful availment test in a case where,

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir.

28
6

1

although some of the claims sounded in tort, all arose out of the

2

plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the defendants).

3
4

B.

Purposeful Availment

5

A defendant purposefully avails itself to the laws a forum

6

state when that defendant “perform[s] some type of affirmative

7

conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within

8

the forum state.”

9

1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d
In determining purposeful availment,

10

the Court should consider factors such as “prior negotiations and

11

contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the

12

contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.”

13

471 U.S. at 479.

14

whether the defendant’s contacts are attributable to actions by the

15

defendant himself, or conversely to the unilateral activity of

16

another party.”

17

800 F.2d 1474, 1478 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted).

18

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are subject to personal

Burger King,

“[T]he purposeful availment analysis turns upon

Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Kansas City,

19

jurisdiction because Defendants willingly committed themselves to

20

agreements with Plaintiff to purchase and pay for the bracelet,

21

solicited other business with Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff

22

hundreds of emails over several years, and coming in person to

23

California to look at jewelry for possible purchase and resale.

24

Defendants argue that there are insufficient contacts to constitute

25

purposeful availment, contending that the dispute arises from an

26

isolated transaction - the sale of the bracelet - and that the

27

major aspects of the sale did not take place in California.

28

Plaintiff and Defendants also dispute which party initiated contact
7

1

during their relationship: Defendants contend that Plaintiff was

2

always the one to initiate contact, whereas Plaintiff contends that

3

Defendants reached out to Plaintiff many times on their own accord.

4

The Court resolves conflicts in the parties’ affidavits in

5

Plaintiff’s favor, and finds that Defendants did purposefully avail

6

themselves of the laws of California.

7

that the parties had a multi-year relationship that began in August

8

2011 and continued through 2013.

9

parties exchanged hundreds of emails in which Defendants contacted

Plaintiff’s affidavits show

The affidavits state that the

10

Plaintiff’s salesperson multiple times in inquiring after the

11

availability of various types of jewelry for sale.

12

resulted in the sale of three items over the years, and were such

13

that when Jaziri traveled to California in 2012, she informed

14

Plaintiff and visited Plaintiff’s showroom to view items for sale.

15

These contacts

The factual allegations advanced by Plaintiff do not show

16

unilateral activity on Plaintiff’s part; rather, they show that

17

Defendants affirmatively contacted Plaintiff multiple times to

18

inquire into purchasing items from Plaintiff, and that the

19

relationship was a mutual one.

20

in California and that they were agreeing to purchase items for

21

sale in California; they should not be surprised that they might be

22

subject to liability in California for allegedly failing to pay for

23

items as agreed.

Defendants knew Plaintiff operated

24

C.

Arising out of Forum-Related Activities

25

Under the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the

26

Court must determine whether the asserted claims arise out of or

27

was related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state.

28

requirement is measured in terms of “but for” causation.
8

This

Bancroft

1

& Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th

2

Cir. 2000).

3

Here, Plaintiff has provided little evidence regarding the

4

origins of this transaction, the Court finds that the harm does

5

relate to Defendants’ California-related activities.

6

does not provide any facts with respect to how the contract for

7

sale of the bracelet arose; instead, Plaintiff states that the

8

parties came to an agreement whereby Plaintiff would deliver the

9

bracelet to Defendants in France, and Defendants would wire the

Plaintiff

10

payments for the bracelet to Plaintiff in California.

Despite this

11

omission, the Court finds that but for Defendants’ contacts with

12

Plaintiff in California and the existing relationship between the

13

parties, the sale - and hence the injury to Plaintiff - would not

14

have occurred.

15

D.

Reasonableness

16

Because Plaintiff has satisfied the first two prongs, the

17

burden shifts to Defendants to rebut the presumption that

18

jurisdiction is reasonable by presenting a compelling case that

19

specific personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

20

471 U.S. at 477 (“[the defendant] must present a compelling case

21

that the presence of some other considerations would render

22

jurisdiction unreasonable”).

23

Court considers: (1) the extent of purposeful interjection into the

24

forum state; (2) the burden on the defendant; (3) the conflict with

25

the sovereignty of the defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s

26

interest in the suit; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of

27

the dispute; (6) the convenience and effectiveness of relief for

28

the plaintiff; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.

Burger King,

To determine reasonableness, the

9

Id.

1

at 475.

2

dispositive. Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 475 (9th

3

Cir. 1995).

4
5

All seven factors must be weighed, and no single factor is

1. Purposeful Interjection
The first factor is the extent of purposeful interjection into

6

the forum state.

7

jurisdiction.

8

approximately two years with Plaintiff, which operates its business

9

in California.

Here, the factor weighs in favor of finding

Defendants established an ongoing relationship for

Defendants affirmatively reached out to Plaintiff

10

to inquire about the purchase of jewelry, knowing that Plaintiff’s

11

store was located in California.

12
13

2. Burden on the Defendant
The second factor is the burden on the defendant in defending

14

in the forum state.

15

out to the forum state, the burden of defending itself in a foreign

16

forum militates against exercising jurisdiction.” Fed. Deposit Ins.

17

Corp. v. British-American Ins. Co., Ltd., 828 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th

18

Cir. 1987) (internal quotations omitted).

19

defendant is increased when it is ordered to defend itself in the

20

foreign legal system of another country.

21

Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal. Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 114

22

(1987).

23

small French business that is owned by said individual.

24

might be a burden for Defendants to litigate in the United States,

25

a foreign jurisdiction to Defendants, and in a foreign language.

26

However, Defendants’ sole argument on this point is that travel

27

would be expensive and time-consuming.

28

argues that the actual burden Defendants will suffer is not great

Where “a defendant has done little to reach

The burden of a

Asahi Metal Indus. Co.,

Here, Defendants are an individual located in France and a

10

(Mot. at 7-8.)

There

Plaintiff

1

due to the “advent of modern technology,” and that most discovery

2

and document production can be handled without necessitating

3

Defendant’s physical presence in the United States.

4

Defendants’ described burden is a relatively mild one; however,

5

this factor does weigh against finding jurisdiction.

6
7

3.

(Opp. at 18.)

Sovereignty Conflict

The third factor is the extent of conflict with the

8

sovereignty of the defendant’s state.

As an initial matter, “a

9

foreign state presents a higher sovereignty barrier than another

10

state within the United States.”

11

at 1444.

12

extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the

13

international field.”

14

However, Defendants do not address this factor in their Motion.

15

Thus, the Court will not weigh this factor either in favor of or

16

against finding jurisdiction in its analysis.

17
18

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 828 F.2d

Thus, “great care and reserve should be exercised when

4.

Asahi Metal Indus., 480 U.S. at 115.

Forum State’s Interest

The fourth factor is the forum state’s interest in

19

adjudicating the dispute.

20

in providing an effective means of redress for its residents who

21

are tortiously injured.”

22

F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1993).

23

business that has been injured.

24

of finding jurisdiction.

25
26

5.

“California maintains a strong interest

Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11
Plaintiff is a California
Thus, this factor weighs in favor

Most Efficient Judicial Resolution

The fifth consideration is the most efficient judicial

27

resolution of the dispute.

“In evaluating this factor, we have

28

looked primarily at where the witnesses and the evidence are likely
11

1

to be located.”

2

a French official who is an expert on import duty taxes in France

3

would be an important potential witness in this suit.

4

further point out that Jaziri resides in France.

5

that a large part of the evidence, as well as witnesses who were

6

involved in selling the bracelet, reside in California.

7

finds that this factor is neutral with respect to jurisdiction.

8
9

6.

Core–Vent, 11 F.3d at 1489.

Defendants argue that

Defendants

Plaintiff argues

The Court

Plaintiff’s Interest

The sixth factor is the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and

10

effective relief.

11

given much weight to inconvenience to the plaintiff.”

12

11 F.3d at 1490.

13

evident ties to France other than having sold items to Defendants.

14

However, it is unclear whether a judgment for Plaintiff in French

15

court would be any less effective than a judgment here.

16

balance, this factor weighs in favor of finding jurisdiction.

17
18

7.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor our court has
Core-Vent,

Plaintiff is located in California and has no

On

Existence of Alternative Forum

The final factor is the availability of an alternate forum.

19

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the unavailability of an

20

alternate forum.

21

Defendants argue that France is a suitable alternate forum.

22

fact, it appears that Plaintiff is already pursuing a remedy

23

against Defendants in France.

24

California would be a more convenient forum, it has not proved that

25

it would be barred from obtaining a judgment against Defendants in

26

France.

27

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 828 F.2d at 1445.

Although Plaintiff points out that

This factor weighs against finding jurisdiction.
8.

In

Balancing of Factors

28
12

1

Overall, this is a close case.

Factors one, four, and six

2

weigh in favor of finding jurisdiction.

Factors two, five, and

3

seven weigh against finding jurisdiction.

4

a heavy burden in proving that the Court cannot constitutionally

5

find jurisdiction: “Once purposeful availment has been established,

6

the forum’s exercise of jurisdiction is presumptively reasonable.

7

To rebut that presumption, a defendant ‘must present a compelling

8

case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would, in fact, be

9

unreasonable.”

However, defendant bears

Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 625 (9th Cir.

10

1991).

11

Some factors do weigh against finding jurisdiction, but on balance

12

Defendants’ arguments do not present a “compelling case” against

13

the reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction.

14

IV.

15

The Court finds that Defendants have not met that burden.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: February 3, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13