Brilliant Colors Digital, Pte. Ltd. v. Centurion Art Development, LLC et al
Filing
40
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 25 Motion to Dismiss.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BRILLIANT COLORS DIGITAL, PTE.
LTD.,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CENTURION ART DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )
RUSSELL DWAYNE MASON, and LEON
)
GUOLIANG WANG,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
17
Case No. 12-00594 SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Brilliant Colors Digital, Pte. Ltd. ("Plaintiff")
18
brings this action in its own right and as assignee of the rights
19
and claims of Massive Black, Inc. ("MB").
20
4.
21
and animation for the entertainment industry, and has a production
22
studio in Shanghai, China ("MB Shanghai").
23
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Leon Goliang Wang ("Wang") was MB
24
Shanghai's director and manager.
25
alleges that, in 2011, Wang and Defendant Russell Mason secretly
26
27
28
ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶
MB produces concept art, 2- and 3-dimensional illustrations,
Id. ¶ 18.
Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.
Plaintiff further
formed a new business, Defendant Centurion Art Development, LLC, to
seize MB's assets and opportunities.
Id. ¶ 28.
1
Wang now moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
2
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
3
("MTD").
4
("Reply"), and appropriate for resolution without oral argument.
5
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Wang's motion.
6
ECF No. 25
The motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 33 ("Opp'n), 37
On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion such as this, "plaintiffs bear the
7
burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate."
Dole
8
Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002).
9
Where, as here, the motion is based on written materials rather
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
than an evidentiary hearing, the Court must determine whether the
11
plaintiff's pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of
12
personal jurisdiction.
13
complaint must be taken as true," and "conflicts between parties
14
over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the
15
plaintiff's favor."
16
Id.
"[U]ncontroverted allegations in the
Id.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its prima facie
17
burden here.
18
he resides exclusively in the People's Republic of China, does not
19
conduct business in California, does not own property in
20
California, does not pay taxes in California, and has never owned
21
an office in California.
22
dispositive since (1) Wang was personally served with process in
23
California; and (2) Wang contractually agreed to be subject to
24
jurisdiction in this forum.
25
Wang argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because
MTD at 7.
However, these facts are not
With respect to the first point, Wang was personally served in
26
San Francisco, California on March 8, 2012.
ECF No. 8 ("Proof of
27
Service").
28
personal service is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Under prevailing Supreme Court precedent, in-state
2
1
Burnham v. Super. Ct., 495 U.S. 604, 619 (1990); see also Water
2
Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802, 819
3
(9th Cir. 2011).
4
while attending a multi-day conference, but he argues that his
5
"presence in California is limited and attenuated such that the
6
exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable."
7
Supreme Court considered and rejected a similar argument in
8
Burnham:
Wang concedes that he was served in San Francisco
Reply at 4.
The
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
The short of the matter is that jurisdiction based on
physical presence alone constitutes due process because
it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal
system
that
define
the
due
process
standard
of
"traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice." That standard was developed by analogy to
"physical presence," and it would be perverse to say it
could
now
be
turned
against
that
touchstone
of
jurisdiction.
14
15
495 U.S. at 619.
16
personal jurisdiction is proper because Wang was served in the
17
forum.
18
Accordingly, the Court finds that the exercise of
The exercise of personal jurisdiction is also appropriate
19
because Wang entered into a "Confidentiality and Invention
20
Assignment Agreement" (the "Confidentiality Agreement") with MB
21
which provides for exclusive jurisdiction in California:
22
23
24
25
Any dispute that arises under or relates to this
Agreement (whether contract, tort, or both) shall be
resolved in Federal or State court with jurisdiction for
the County of San Francisco, State of California, and the
parties expressly waive any right they may otherwise have
to cause any such action or proceeding to be brought or
tried elsewhere.
26
ECF No. 34 Ex. B. ¶ 14.
27
in the Confidentiality Agreement, are presumptively valid and
28
evidence consent to personal jurisdiction in the forum selected.
Forum selection clauses, such as the one
3
1
Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1052
2
(N.D. Cal. 2010).
3
selection clause bears the burden of proving the clause is
4
unenforceable."
5
"The party disputing the validity of a forum
Id.
Wang argues that his contract for services with MB was illegal
6
under Chinese law and, therefore void.
7
Wang contends that, as a foreign business holding a resident
8
representative office in China, MB could not legally employ Chinese
9
citizens, such as Wang, to perform any profitable development work
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
in China.
Id.
Reply at 2.
Specifically,
However, Wang has failed to point to any Chinese
authority which would support this contention.
cites to his own declaration.
Instead, he merely
Wang is not a lawyer and, in any
13
event, his legal opinions are not binding on this Court.
Further,
14
even if MB and Wang's employment relationship were illegal, it is
15
unclear why that would affect the enforceability of the
16
Confidentiality Agreement.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Wang
17
has failed to meet his burden of proving that the forum selection
18
19
20
21
clause in the Confidentiality Agreement is unenforceable.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Leon
Goliang Wang's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated: December 5, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
4
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?