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