Pag-Daly City, LLC v. Quality Auto Locators, Inc et al
Filing
152
ORDER HOLDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN ABEYANCE PENDING DISCOVERY AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup deferring ruling on 79 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 80 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 81 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 83 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 87 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 89 Motion to Dismiss for La ck of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 91 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 93 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 94 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; deferring ruling on 122 Stipulation; finding as moot 140 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; finding as moot 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PAG-DALY CITY, LLC,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 12-03907 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
14
QUALITY AUTO LOCATORS, INC., et
al.,
15
ORDER HOLDING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS IN ABEYANCE
PENDING DISCOVERY AND
VACATING HEARING
Defendants.
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
18
In this theft and unfair competition action involving vehicles allocated to Toyota
19
dealerships, nine dealership defendants move to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.
20
For the reasons explained below, the motions will be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further
21
discovery. The January 31 hearing is VACATED. The January 31 Case Management Conference
22
is POSTPONED until JUNE 6. .
23
24
STATEMENT
Plaintiff PAG-DALY CITY, LLC, dba City Toyota, alleges that defendants all
25
participated in a series of organized thefts that deprived plaintiff of vehicles destined for its
26
Toyota dealership before they arrived. The defendants fall into two categories: (i) car broker
27
companies and their employees, and (ii) car dealerships located outside of California. Although
28
the individual circumstances vary, plaintiff alleges a common modus operandi: the car
dealership defendants made payments to the broker defendants, who in turn “induced a miscreant
1
City Toyota employee” to initiate transfers from City Toyota’s inventory in exchange for
2
kickbacks. The car dealership defendants challenge personal jurisdiction and move to dismiss.
3
ANALYSIS
4
General jurisdiction is not asserted. Rather, plaintiff contends, and defendants deny, that
5
specific personal jurisdiction exists over the defendant dealerships. “[P]laintiff bears the burden
6
of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate . . . [and] the plaintiff need only make a prima
7
facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797,
8
800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Specific jurisdiction lies only where a defendant “has
9
sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the [forum state] arising from, or related to, its actions” at
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
issue, including the following:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully
avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the
forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) The claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the
defendant’s forum-related activities; and
15
16
(3) The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and
substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
17
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801–02. When considering the first prong, “something more than
18
mere foreseeability” of an effect in the forum state is necessary. Id. at 805. Where “[f]urther
19
discovery on [the] issue might well demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for
20
jurisdiction” denial of jurisdictional discovery will be an abuse of discretion. Harris Rutsky &
21
Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).
22
For each dealership defendant, plaintiff alleges that given the shortage of available
23
vehicles at the time of the transfers and the lack of normal paperwork, the dealership defendants
24
either knew or must have known they were participating in a theft. Plaintiff further alleges that
25
the vehicle transfers could not be completed without the dealership defendants’ active
26
participation and knowledge that they were receiving vehicles from California because of the
27
nature of the electronic transfer system.
28
2
1
The dealership defendants contend, among other things, that they did not know the
2
source of the transferred vehicles when the transactions took place, or that they did not initiate
3
the transfers, and that the paperwork was typical. The declarations filed by the parties conflict
4
on these points.
5
If the dealership defendants indeed knew that they were participating in the improper
6
transfer of vehicles bound for California, or at least acted recklessly, then the exercise of specific
7
personal jurisdiction over these defendants may be proper. This order concludes, however, that
8
the present record is inadequate to rule on this issue as to individual dealership defendants.
9
Discovery will clarify these disputes.
CONCLUSION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
The pending motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be HELD IN
12
ABEYANCE pending further discovery. Plaintiff may take one deposition from each dealership
13
defendant and may take the depositions of the individual brokers named in the amended
14
complaint. Plaintiff may propound 10 narrowly-tailored document requests and 5 reasonably
15
narrow interrogatories (without subparts) to each of the defendants named in the complaint
16
(including the broker entities). For its part, plaintiff must allow one deposition to defendants
17
(combined) and respond to 10 narrowly-drawn document requests and 5 reasonably narrow
18
interrogatories without subparts (both combined as to all defendants). This discovery must be
19
completed BY APRIL 25. Both sides may then supplement as to the pending motions on a more
20
complete factual record.
21
Because the merits of plaintiff’s claims are intertwined with facts related to jurisdiction,
22
this discovery is not limited to jurisdictional facts. There is no restriction on the discovery as
23
long as it has some plausible relationship to the jurisdiction issues — meaning merits-related
24
discovery is fine so long as it has some plausible relationship to a jurisdiction issue. Failure to
25
cooperate in discovery may be deemed an admission to the relevant issue by the non-cooperative
26
party.
27
28
The alternative motions of certain defendants to dismiss based on various alleged
pleading deficiencies are DENIED without prejudice. The alternative motions of certain
3
1
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for being filed without leave are DENIED. Barker
2
Toyota’s motion to submit a new declaration is DENIED AS MOOT. The January 31 hearing is
3
VACATED. The January 31 case management conference is POSTPONED until JUNE 6. The
4
administrative motion to deem late-filed opposition papers timely is DENIED AS MOOT.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: January 25, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?