United States Small Business Administration v. Rocket Ventures II, L.P. et al
Filing
125
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/3/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
12
13
No. C 10-04425 JSW
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, in its capacity as
Receiver for Rocket Ventures II SMIC, L.P.,
v.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION
TO DISMISS
ROCKET VENTURES II, L.P., et al.,
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (“FAC”) for
17
lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and forum non conveniens filed by
18
Defendants Jean-Claude Guez (“Guez”), Michele Liberato (“Liberato”), Yves Derville
19
(“Derville”), Phillippe Gire (“Gire”), Michel Roujansky (“Roujansky”), Michel Saunier
20
(“Saunier”), and Patrice Vinet (“Vinet”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Having
21
considered the parties’ papers1 and relevant legal authority, for the reasons set forth in this
22
Order, the Court denies the motion to dismiss with respect to all of the Defendants except
23
Liberato and reserves ruling with respect to Liberato.
BACKGROUND
24
Defendants are citizens of, and reside in, France and Italy. (FAC, ¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 23, 31,
25
26
33, and 34.) Defendants each signed a Subscription Agreement for, and thus became Limited
27
The Court notes that the French and Italian Defendants did not file their Reply
within the deadline set by Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3(c). Nevertheless, the Court
has considered the Reply despite this lapse. The French and Italian Defendants are
admonished to comply with the Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Orders. Future
violations will be sanctioned.
1
28
1
Partners in, Defendant Rocket Ventures L.P. II (“RVII”) f/k/a Greenfield Technology Ventures
2
II, L.P. (Id., ¶¶ 137, 207, 221, 305, 417, 445, 459.) At least six of the Defendants also signed a
3
document entitled Consent of Limited Partners of Rocket Ventures II, L.P. (“Consent”), through
4
which they consented to the formation of the SBIC subsidiary Rocket Ventures II SBIC, L.P.
5
Additionally, at least six of the Defendants each signed a document appointing Rocket
6
Management LLC, and its principals, located in Menlo Park, CA, as his agent of process.
7
(Declaration of Richard Moser (“Moser Decl.”), Exs. C-H.)
8
9
A.
Legal Standards for Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
A defendant may move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ANALYSIS
Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden to establish
12
personal jurisdiction. Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court may
13
consider evidence presented in affidavits to assist in its determination and may order discovery
14
on the jurisdictional issues. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285
15
(9th Cir. 1977). However, when “a district court acts on a defendant’s motion to dismiss
16
without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
17
jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss .... That is, the plaintiff need only
18
demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Ballard v. Savage,
19
65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles
20
Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that where the trial court rules on a
21
jurisdictional issue based on affidavits and without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff
22
need only make a prima facie showing). Where the facts are not directly controverted,
23
plaintiff’s version of the facts is taken as true. See AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588. Likewise, conflicts
24
between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in a plaintiff’s favor for
25
purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists. Doe v. Unocal
26
Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001).
27
“Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if it is permitted by a long-arm statute
28
and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal due process.” Pebble Beach Co.
2
1
v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co v. Nat’l Bank of
2
Cooperatives, 103 F.3d 888, 893 9th Cir. 1996)). Because California’s long-arm statute is co-
3
extensive with federal due process requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under California
4
law and federal due process are the same. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d
5
797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004).
defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state. The overriding constitutional
8
principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend “traditional
9
conception[s] of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326
10
U.S. 310, 320 (1945). The defendant’s “conduct and connection with the forum State” must be
11
For the Northern District of California
Due process precludes a court from asserting jurisdiction over a defendant unless the
7
United States District Court
6
such that the defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-
12
Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
13
Whether a party’s contacts with the forum are sufficient to permit the state to exercise
14
jurisdiction depends upon the facts of each case. Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional
15
de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Plaintiffs argue that
16
the Court should exercise specific jurisdiction over the French and Italian Defendants.
17
(Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”) at 5.) For specific jurisdiction, “the issue of
18
whether jurisdiction will lie turns on an evaluation of the nature and quality of the defendant’s
19
contacts in relation to the cause of action.” See Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287; see also Calder v.
20
Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984) (“in judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on the
21
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”) (internal quotations and
22
citation omitted).
23
Specific jurisdiction over a defendant exists where: (1) the defendant has purposefully
24
directed his or her activities at residents of the forum state or the forum state itself; (2) the
25
plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) the assertion of personal
26
jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802; see also Burger King
27
Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-77 (1985). “The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying
28
the first two prongs of the test. If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of those prongs, personal
3
1
jurisdiction is not established in the forum state.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (internal
2
citation omitted). “On the other hand, if the plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of the first two
3
prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case that the exercise of
4
jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Menken, 503 F.3d at 1057 (internal quotations and
5
citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has noted that the “purposeful availment prong, “[d]espite
6
its label ... includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by
7
purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of
8
activities at the forum; or by some combination thereof.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le
9
Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006).
“‘Purposeful availment’ requires that the defendant ‘have performed some type of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum
12
state.’” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer,
13
Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). The mere existence of a contract with a party in the
14
forum state does not alone constitute sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction. See Burger
15
King, 471 U.S. at 478. “Instead, the Court must look to ‘prior negotiations and contemplated
16
future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of
17
dealing’ to determine if the defendant’s contacts are ‘substantial’ and not merely ‘random,
18
fortuitous, or attenuated.’” Sher, 91 F.2d at 1362 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479). Thus
19
where the defendant ‘deliberately’ has engaged in significant activities” within a forum, “or has
20
created ‘continuing obligations’ between himself and residents of that forum, he manifestly has
21
availed himself of the privileges of conducting business there.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-
22
76 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In such a situation, because the defendant’s
23
“activities are shielded by ‘the benefits and protections’ of the forum’s laws it is presumptively
24
not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” Id.
25
at 476 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
26
B.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
27
Defendants argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. (Motion at 4.)
28
United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”), in its capacity as Receiver for Rocket
4
1
Ventures II SBIC, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) counters that the Court may exercise specific jurisdiction
2
over them.
3
As noted above, a finding of specific personal jurisdiction requires: (1) the defendant
4
has purposefully directed his or her activities at residents of the forum state or the forum state
5
itself; (2) the plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) the assertion of
6
personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Further, “where
7
the defendant deliberately has engaged in significant activities” within a forum, “or has created
8
continuing obligations between himself and residents of that forum, he manifestly has availed
9
himself of the privileges of conducting business there.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, a choice of law provision may be
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
considered in deciding “whether a defendant has purposefully invoked the benefits and
12
protections of a State’s laws for jurisdictional purposes.” Id. at 482. “Although such a
13
provision standing alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction,” it may “reinforce [the
14
defendant’s] deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of
15
possible litigation there.” Id.
16
Defendants each signed a contract that establish this Court’s specific jurisdiction over
17
them. It is undisputed that each of them signed the Subscription Agreement for RVII. Through
18
this agreement, each of the Defendants acquired a limited partnership interest in RVII and
19
agreed to make capital contributions to be delivered via check or wire transfer, in United States
20
dollars, to the General Partner located in Palo Alto, California. (Moser Decl., Ex.A at 1.)
21
These money investments were to be made “at such times and in such amounts” as agreed upon
22
for each Limited Partner. (Id.) The Subscription Agreement contains a choice of law provision
23
designating California law as that governs the agreement. (Id. at 6.)
24
The Subscription Agreement easily satisfies the first two prongs of the specific
25
jurisdiction test. Defendants each became investors in RVII, which is undisputedly located in
26
the Northern District of California. Moreover, each of them contracted to send quantities of
27
money, over an indefinite period of time, to a General Partner located in this district, thus
28
creating “continuing obligations” between themselves and residents of this district. See Burger
5
1
King, 471 U.S. at 475-76. Furthermore, each of these Defendants agreed to a choice of law
2
provision designating California law as that governing their agreement with RVII, which serves
3
to “reinforce [their] deliberate affiliation” with this district and enhances the reasonable
4
foreseeability of possible litigation here. See id. at 482.
5
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arise out of these Defendants’ involvement in
6
RVII. Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that the claims against these Defendants relates to their
7
purposefully directed conduct in California. Therefore, the burden shifts to Defendants to show
8
that the assertion of personal jurisdiction would not be reasonable and fair. The Court finds
9
that they fail to “present a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be
reasonable.” See Menken, 503 F.3d at 1057. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
12
C.
13
Service of Process.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(5), a district court may dismiss
14
an action based on insufficient service. To determine whether service of process is proper,
15
courts look to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (“Rule 4”). A plaintiff
16
bears the burden of demonstrating that service is proper. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798,
17
801 (9th Cir. 2004).
18
Plaintiff has provided executed documents demonstrating that each of the Defendants,
19
except for Liberato, appointed Rocket Management LLC and its principals, located in Menlo
20
Park, CA, as his agent of process. (Moser Decl., Exs. C-H.) Defendants do not dispute the
21
authenticity of these documents. Nor do Defendants dispute that the agent was properly served.
22
Instead, they contend that the documents appointing an agent for service of process are invalid
23
because the underlying investment contract with RVII is void based on French and Italian law.
24
However, Defendants do not cite to the purported law which they assert voids the underlying
25
investment. Even if they had, the validity of the underlying investment goes to the merits of
26
Plaintiffs’ claims, not the validity of the appointment of service. Defendants have not proffered
27
any law demonstrating that the documents appointing an agent for service of process are invalid
28
or void.
6
1
Defendants also argue that the Court should disregard the appointments because
2
Defendants were not provided sufficient indication of the consequences of appointing an agent
3
in the United States or sufficient time to seek independent legal advice. Again, Defendants fail
4
to support their contention with any law, fact, or even argument.
5
The defendants’ contention that they did not understand the appointment document does
6
not void the contract. “[A] party who signs a written contract ‘in the absence of fraud or other
7
wrongful act on the part of another contracting party, is conclusively presumed to know its
8
contents and to assent to them.’” Bingham v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011)
9
(citing 27 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 70:113 (4th ed. 2009)); see also Operating
Engineers Pension Trust v. Cecil Backhoe Service, Inc., 795 F.2d 1501, 1505 (9th Cir. 1986)
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
(emphasis added) (“A party who signs a contract is bound by its terms regardless of whether he
12
reads it or considers the legal consequences of signing it.”); Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.,
13
134 Cal. App. 4th 1565, 1589 (2005) (under California law, a party is bound by a contract, even
14
if the party failed to read or understand the terms of the agreement before signing it).
15
Accordingly, Defendants fail to show that they are not bound by the agreement
16
appointing an agent for service of process and, thus, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to
17
dismiss with respect to all Defendants except Liberato.
18
With respect to Liberato, Plaintiff could not locate the document appointing an agent for
19
service of process signed by him. Plaintiff states that, as a foreign investor in RVII, and then
20
Rocket Ventures II SBIC L.P., Liberato was required to appoint a domestic agent for service of
21
process. In light of the documents by each of the other Defendants appointing an agent,
22
Plaintiff has no reason to believe that Liberato did not execute this document as well. Plaintiff
23
seeks an opportunity to conduct discovery on this issue. The Court may allow discovery on this
24
jurisdictional issue. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n. 24
25
(9th Cir. 1977) (citing Urquhart v. American-La France Foamite Corp., 144 F.2d 542, 544
26
(D.C. Cir. 1944) (allowing discovery on service of process).
27
28
7
1
The Court finds that discovery regarding whether Liberato signed the appointment
2
document is warranted. Therefore, the Court reserves ruling on the motion to dismiss with
3
respect to Liberato in order to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to conduct such discovery.
4
D.
The Northern District is the Proper Forum for This Action.
5
Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed from the Northern District of
6
California on forum non conveniens grounds. (Motion at 6.) “A district court has discretion to
7
decline to exercise jurisdiction in a case where litigation in a foreign forum would be more
8
convenient for the parties.” Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001)
9
(citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504 (1947)). “[T]here is ordinarily a strong
presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
235, 265-66 (1981). “In dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds the court must
12
examine: (1) whether an adequate forum exists, and (2) whether the balance of private and
13
public interest factors favor dismissal.” Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1142 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454
14
U.S. at 254 n. 22). “The defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an adequate
15
alternative forum.” Id. at 1143 (internal citations and quotations omitted). In cases “where the
16
plaintiff is a United States citizen, the defendant must satisfy a heavy burden of proof.” Id.
17
(citing Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256). “[A] plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to greater
18
deference when the plaintiff has chosen the home forum .... When the home forum has been
19
chosen, it is reasonable to assume that this choice is convenient.” Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft,
20
454 U.S. at 256).
21
Defendants have not made a sufficient showing. First, the Court notes that Defendants
22
have not demonstrated that an alternative forum exists. Defendants argue that because they all
23
reside in either France or Italy, the French or Italian courts are available to address Plaintiff’s
24
claims. However, Defendants have not shown that there is a court in either France or Italy that
25
would have jurisdiction over every Defendant.
26
Moreover, Defendants have not satisfied the heavy burden to show that Plaintiff’s
27
choice of forum is not convenient. Notably, Defendants do not provide any evidence in support
28
of their motion, but merely argue, in one paragraph that the balance of factors weighs in favor
8
1
of litigating in an unspecified court in Europe because Defendants’ witnesses and documentary
2
evidence of their unspecified defenses are in France and Italy and that it would be burdensome
3
on Defendants to require them to litigate in the United States. Defendants’ brief, unsupported
4
argument, is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on
5
forum non conveniens grounds.
6
7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, with the exception of the motion regarding sufficiency of
8
service on Liberato, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss. The Court RESERVES
9
RULING on the motion as to Liberato on the issue of service of process. Plaintiff may conduct
discovery on whether Liberato signed an appointment of service of process and shall file a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
supplemental brief and declaration in opposition to the motion to dismiss by no later than March
12
29, 2013. Liberato may file a supplemental reply by no later than April 5, 2013.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: January 3, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?