Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Management Group LLC et al

Filing 217

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying #180 Motion to Dismiss (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, and CTNY ) Case No. 12-cv-04000-SC
INSURANCE GROUP LLC, on behalf )
of themselves and all others
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC,
)
REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, REGUS )
PLC, HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES LLC, )
and DOES 1 through 50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

17
18
I. INTRODUCTION

19

Now before the Court is Defendant Regus plc's motion to

20
21

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

22

briefed 1 and suitable for determination without oral argument per

23

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

24

plc's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

25

///

26

///

27

1

28

The motion is fully

For the reasons set forth below, Regus

ECF Nos. 180 ("Mot."), 187-3 ("Redacted Opp'n"), 187-4 ("Opp'n")
(filed under seal), 202 ("Reply").

II. BACKGROUND

1

A detailed discussion of this case's background appears in the

2

ECF No. 59 ("Jan. 2013 Order").

5

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC"), ECF No. 62.

6

Defendants are in the business of leasing commercial office space

7

throughout the world.

8

United States District Court

Court's January 3, 2013 order, so a short summary appears here.

4

For the Northern District of California

3

limited company incorporated and registered in Jersey, Channel

9

Islands, and is the parent company of Defendants Regus Management

Id. ¶ 1.

These facts are taken from

Defendant Regus plc is a public

10

Group ("RMG"), Regus Business Centre LLC ("RBC"), and HQ Global

11

Workplaces LLC ("HQ").

12

referred to collectively as "Regus," both in this Order and in the

13

SAC. 2

14

one another and generally do not distinguish between them in the

15

SAC.

Id. ¶¶ 9-15.

All four defendants are

Plaintiffs allege that all four defendants are alter egos of

Id. ¶¶ 1, 21.
In 2011 and 2012, Plaintiffs entered into office agreements

16
17

with Defendants to lease commercial office space in California and

18

New York.

19

assessed charges beyond what was indicated by their agreements,

20

including charges related to kitchen amenities, telecommunication

21

services, "business continuity service," taxes, and penalties.

22

Plaintiffs allege that these fees were not disclosed in the office

23

agreements and bore no reasonable relationship to the services

Id. ¶¶ 45, 56, 71.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants

24
2

25
26
27
28

Ordinarily, the Court would be skeptical of such imprecise
language. However, the evidence demonstrates that the Regus
companies consistently fail to distinguish between themselves.
Accordingly the Court, too, is comfortable referring to all
defendant companies collectively as "Regus." When the Court
intends to identify Defendant Regus plc individually, the Court
shall refer to "Regus plc."

2

1

Defendants' offered.

Id. ¶¶ 52, 62, 76.

2

Defendants violated California business and false advertising laws,

3

and they bring unjust enrichment claims under California and New

4

York law as well.

5

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

6

Act ("RICO").

Id. ¶¶ 91-163.

Plaintiffs allege that

Plaintiffs also allege

Id. ¶¶ 164-95.

In January 2013, the Court denied without prejudice Regus

7

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8

plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and

9

permitted Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

Jan.

10

2013 Order at 10.

The Court held that Defendants' website,

11

regus.com, was insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over

12

Regus plc because, at that time, the evidence indicated that all of

13

the interactive features of the website were handled by RMG.

14

at 6-7.

15

jurisdiction.

Id.

Regus plc now moves again to dismiss for lack of personal

16
17

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the Court has

18
19

personal jurisdiction over Regus plc.

See Pebble Beach Co. v.

20

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

21

requires that the plaintiff make only a prima facie showing of

22

jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss."

23

(quotations omitted).

24

favor of the plaintiff . . . ."

25

plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its

26

complaint, but uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be

27

taken as true."

28

///

"[T]his demonstration

Id.

"[T]he court resolves all disputed facts in
Id.

(quotations omitted).

"The

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d

3

1

1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). 3

2

California's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due

3

process requirements, California Civil Procedure Code section

4

410.10, the personal jurisdiction analysis under state and federal

5

law are the same.

Since

6

A.

7

The Ninth Circuit has established a three-prong analysis for

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8

Specific Jurisdiction

assessing claims of specific jurisdiction:

9
(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;

10
11
12
13

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates
to the defendant's forum-related activities; and

14
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair
play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

15
16

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th

17

Cir. 2004).

18

two prongs and, if it does, the burden then shifts to the defendant

19

to show why the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be

20

unreasonable.

21

B.

22

Generally, the existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship

23
24
25
26
27
28

The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first

Id.

Agency and Alter Ego

3

This prima facie showing is all that is required, even after
jurisdictional discovery: "If the court determines that it will
receive only affidavits or affidavits plus discovery materials,
these very limitations dictate that a plaintiff must make only a
prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts through the submitted
materials in order to avoid a defendant's motion to dismiss." Data
Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th
Cir. 1977); see also Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ.,
198 F.R.D. 670, 673 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (explaining that prima facie
burden is required after jurisdictional discovery is taken).

4

1

"is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the

2

parent on the basis of the subsidiaries' minimum contacts with the

3

forum."

4

However, "if the parent and subsidiary are not really separate

5

entities [i.e., alter egos], or one acts as an agent of the other,

6

the local subsidiary's contacts with the forum may be imputed to

7

the foreign parent corporation."

Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2001).

Id. at 926 (quotations omitted).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

IV. DISCUSSION

10

A.

Website and Emails as Regus plc's Contacts

11

In their brief opposing Regus plc's previous motion to

12

dismiss, Plaintiffs made three primary arguments.

13

asserted that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Regus plc

14

directly, mostly as a result of the regus.com website.

15

also argued that the other defendants' contacts with California

16

should be imputed to Regus plc because the other defendants were

17

either agents or alter egos of Regus plc.

18

pursue their direct and agency theories of personal jurisdiction,

19

but they have apparently abandoned their alter ego theory, as it is

20

not mentioned in their opposition brief.

21

First, they

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs continue to

The Court held in its previous order that Plaintiffs had

22

failed to make a prima facie case for direct personal jurisdiction.

23

Defendants now argue that the previous order constitutes the law of

24

the case and bars Plaintiffs from reasserting those theories.

25

was not the effect of the January 3 Order.

26

holdings regarding personal jurisdiction: (1) with respect to

27

direct personal jurisdiction, "Plaintiffs have failed to meet their

28

burden of showing that the exercise of specific jurisdiction would

5

That

That order made two

personal jurisdiction via agency or alter ego theories, "Plaintiffs

3

have yet to come forward with any evidence concerning the

4

functional relationship between Defendants."

5

those holdings were determinations that Plaintiffs had failed to

6

make a prima facie case for jurisdiction at that point.

7

holding precludes Plaintiffs from reasserting those theories now.

8

United States District Court

be appropriate," Jan. 2013 Order at 8; and (2) with respect to

2

For the Northern District of California

1

Indeed, by denying Regus plc's motion without prejudice, the Court

9

specifically envisioned additional argument on Plaintiffs' theories

Id. at 9.

Both of

Neither

10

once the factual record was supplemented with jurisdictional

11

discovery.

12

operated the website directly, rather than through an agent or

13

alter ego, the Court would be remiss to disregard that evidence.

If jurisdictional discovery revealed that Regus plc

1.

14

Regus plc's Direct Control of the Website

Plaintiffs have provided substantial evidence of Regus plc's

15
16

involvement in the website. 4

17

periods, the regus.com website footer specified that Regus plc held

18

copyright for the website.

19

the terms and conditions posted on the website during the alleged

20

class period state that "Regus plc ('Regus Group') (whether

21

directly or indirectly) owns and operates the regus.co.uk website,

22

the regus.com website, the hq.com website and the stratisnet.com

23

4

24
25
26
27
28

First, during the relevant time

ECF No. 188 ("RJN") Exs. A-H.

Second,

Plaintiffs have filed a request for judicial notice in support of
their opposition brief. ECF No. 188. The documents Plaintiffs
request to be noticed are archived versions of the regus.com
website and Regus plc's annual reports, which are publicly
available online. Regus plc has not objected to judicial notice to
any of the documents. The Court finds that the facts Plaintiffs
request to be noticed can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Accordingly the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request and takes notice
of the attached documents.

6

'Site')."

3

point to several statements on the website, such as the claim that

4

"With 1000 business centres in 75 countries, Regus plc is the

5

world's largest provider of outsourced workplaces . . . ," which

6

indicate that Regus plc not only operates the website but actually

7

provides the office space rented through the site.

8

United States District Court

website (collectively, 'Regus Group Websites' and individually,

2

For the Northern District of California

1

I.

9

website," and they define "Company" as Regus plc.

ECF No. 189 ("Garofolo Decl.") Ex. 1.

Third, Plaintiffs

RJN Exs. E, G,

Fourth, Regus plc's annual reports referred to "the Company's

10

PLF00641, PLF00649.

11

RJN Ex. J at

website pages that Regus plc has submitted.

12

There is no mention of RMG in any of the

In response, Regus plc bleats again that RMG handled the

13

interactive features of the website.

14

involvement, though, is the declaration of Tim Regan, Regus plc's

15

corporate secretary.

16

or operate the regus.com website, and that all interactive features

17

interface with RMG, not Regus plc.

18

17-18.

19

website that existed during the relevant time period.

20

The only evidence of RMG's

Mr. Regan states that Regus plc does not own

ECF No. 30 ("Regan Decl.") ¶¶

Those assertions directly contradict the text of the

The Court finds that a factual dispute exists as to whether

21

Regus plc operated the regus.com website, including its interactive

22

features, during the class period.

23

evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing that Regus plc

24

operated the website, and Regus plc has countered with a

25

declaration asserting the opposite.

26

stage, the Court must resolve all disputed facts in the Plaintiffs'

27

favor.

28

Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. granted sub nom.,

Plaintiffs have presented

At the motion to dismiss

See, e.g., In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust

7

1

Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2899 (U.S. 2014); Wash.

2

Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.

3

2012).

4

prima facie showing that Regus plc owned and operated the regus.com

5

website during the relevant time.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a

2.

6
7

RMG as Regus plc's Agent

Even were the Court to hold otherwise, the evidence is still

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8

sufficient for a prima facie showing of an agency relationship

9

between Regus plc and RMG.

Under California law, "[a]n agency is

10

ostensible when the principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary

11

care, causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who

12

is not really employed by him."

13

"purported agent's use of names and logos and the existence of a

14

business relationship between the two entities" can establish an

15

ostensible agency.

16

2150070, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012).

17

also held that a franchisee who uses the parent company's name and

18

logo may be an ostensible agent.

19

Residential Affiliates, Inc., 59 Cal. App. 4th 741, 747-48 (Cal.

20

Ct. App. 1997).

21

Cal. Civ. Code § 2300.

A

Holt v. Kormann, SACV 11-1047 DOC MLG, 2012 WL
California courts have

See Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker

Plaintiffs provide significant evidence that RMG acted as

22

Regus plc's agent in operating the website.

As discussed above,

23

the copyright, terms and conditions, and text of the website state

24

in no uncertain terms that Regus plc owned and operated the

25

website.

26

plc not only controlled the website but was the entity that

27

actually provided rental office space.

28

that the text of the website was inaccurate, and that Mr. Regan was

The terms and text also give the impression that Regus

8

Nonetheless, it is possible

1

correct in stating that RMG operated the website.
Even if RMG actually owned and operated the website, RMG used

2

identities was so complete that RMG was not even mentioned in the

5

website's text or terms of use.

6

name and logo were sufficient to render the franchisee an

7

ostensible agent, even though the fine print on the franchisee's

8

United States District Court

Regus plc's name and logo.

4

For the Northern District of California

3

The intermingling of the corporate

advertising materials clearly explained that the franchise was

9

owned and operated independently from the parent.

In Kaplan, use of the parent's

See id. at 744,

10

747.

11

website indicated that Regus plc owned and operated the website but

12

made no mention of any sort of agent or intermediary, a user or

13

customer must have had the impression that whoever operated the

14

website -- if not Regus plc itself -- had Regus plc's authority to

15

do so.

16

intentionally or carelessly caused them to believe that the

17

operator of the regus.com website was either Regus plc or its

18

agent.

19

for the purpose of personal jurisdiction.

20

Here, there is no evidence of such a disclaimer.

Because the

Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that Regus plc

The regus.com website may therefore be imputed to Regus plc

Similarly, the emails that Plaintiffs submit were sent by

21

Regus plc's apparent agents.

See ECF Nos. 213-6, 213-7, 213-8.

22

Defendants assert that the authors of all three emails were RMG

23

employees.

24

testimony of one of Defendants' employees, this time RMG's Vice

25

President of Human Resources.

26

Decl.") ¶¶ 2, 3, 5.

27

Regus plc.

28

address in Luxembourg.

Once again, those claims are based solely on the

See ECF No. 202-3 ("Edmondson

However, some of the emails are copyrighted by

They all contain a footer listing Regus plc and an
There is no mention whatsoever of RMG.

9

The

employees of "Regus" with no further specification.

3

6, 213-7, 213-8.

4

made a prima facie showing that Regus plc intentionally or

5

carelessly created the impression that the authors of those emails

6

were Regus plc employees.

7

plc employees, Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that the

8

United States District Court

employees' titles are listed, but the emails state that they are

2

For the Northern District of California

1

authors of the emails acted as Regus plc's ostensible agents.

9

emails, too, may be imputed to Regus plc for the personal

10
11

ECF Nos. 213-

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have

Whether or not they were actually Regus

The

jurisdiction analysis.
Having concluded that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie

12

showing that the website and emails may be imputed to Regus plc,

13

the Court now turns to the personal jurisdiction analysis specified

14

by the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit.

15

B.

Specific Jurisdiction

16

The exercise of specific jurisdiction requires three elements:

17

(1) the non-resident must purposefully direct an activity or

18

transaction at the forum state; (2) the claim must arise out of or

19

relate to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3)

20

personal jurisdiction must comport with traditional notions of fair

21

play and substantial justice.

22

1.

The Court examines each in turn.

Purposeful Direction

23

The Ninth Circuit has further divided the purposeful direction

24

prong into a three-part test in tort cases: the defendant must have

25

(1) committed an intentional act (2) expressly aimed at the forum

26

state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be

27

suffered in the forum state.

28

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

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le

10

Regarding the first part of that test, simply creating and

1
2

registering a website, even a passive one, qualifies as an

3

intentional act.

4

Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2010); Rio Props., Inc.

5

v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002).

6

Court finds that Regus plc's operation of the regus.com website was

7

an intentional act. 5

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

The

The next issue is whether that intentional act was expressly

8
9

See, e.g., Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon &

aimed at California.

In the Ninth Circuit, operation of a passive

10

website without "something more" is insufficient to confer

11

jurisdiction.

12

considered in determining whether a defendant has done "something

13

more" are the interactivity of the website, the geographic scope of

14

the defendant's commercial ambitions, and whether the defendant

15

individually targeted a plaintiff known to be a forum resident.

16

Additionally, the forum state has jurisdiction over a defendant who

17

"continuously and deliberately exploited" the market in the forum

18

state through a website.

19

647 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Rio Props., 606 F.3d at 1020.

Among the factors

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,
In Mavrix, the Ninth Circuit

20
5

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Regus plc asserts that it cannot be held responsible for the
website's advertising and marketing content because that content is
developed by Regus Group Services, Ltd. and RMG. See Reply at 9;
ECF No. 202-4 ("Sherman Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiffs object to the
Sherman declaration because it is phrased in the present tense and
refers to a marketing agreement dated August 7, 2012 through which
Regus Group Services, Ltd. develops the website content.
Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Sherman's statements are irrelevant
because they deal only with website content developed after
Plaintiffs entered into their office rental agreements. ECF No.
204. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs' objection is SUSTAINED and the
declaration is STRICKEN. However, even were the Court to consider
Ms. Sherman's declaration, it would be insufficient to overcome
Plaintiffs' prima facie case that Regus plc operated the website
directly or through an ostensible agent.

11

a specific focus" on certain California industries.

3

held that "the website's subject matter, as well as the size and

4

commercial value of the California market" supported a conclusion

5

that the defendant "anticipated, desired, and achieved a

6

substantial California viewer base."

7

considered two additional factors.

8

United States District Court

determined that the defendant "operated a very popular website with

2

For the Northern District of California

1

attracted a nationwide audience, so it could count on reaching

9

consumers in all fifty states.

Id.

Id.

The court

The Ninth Circuit also

First, the defendant sought and

Second, the defendant cultivated a

10

nationwide audience for commercial gain, and therefore could not

11

"characterize the consumption of its products in any state as

12

'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated.'"

Id.

13

Applying these principles to this case, it is clear that

14

operation of the regus.com website constituted an intentional act

15

expressly aimed at California.

16

regus.com website advertised offices for rent in 37 states,

17

California among them, and in several California cities (including

18

San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San

19

Mateo, San Bruno, and many others).

20

advertised offices for rent in more than fifteen buildings in San

21

Francisco alone.

22

commercial gain, the Regus companies' revenues derived from

23

California were around ₤60 million 6 each year from 2010 to 2012,

24

6

25
26
27
28

RJN Ex. R.

During the relevant period, the

RJN Ex. Q.

The website also

As for cultivating business for

These numbers are derived by multiplying the revenue numbers for
the Americas published in Regus' publicly available annual reports
by the percentages of the Regus Group's revenues that come from
California. See RJN Ex. J at PLF00667; RJN Ex. K at PLF00760; RJN
Ex. L at PLF00863; ECF No. 187-5 ("Redacted Regus Revenue Stip.")
(redacted portions filed under seal). It is somewhat confusing to
read the stipulation because, while the stipulation reports the
percentages of both RMG and Regus Group revenues derived from

12

1

accounting for over fifteen percent of United States revenues.

2

There can be no doubt that Regus plc intended to, and did,

3

significant business in California through its website.

4

The interactive features of the website are also important.

Regus, book a tour of an office, and get a "quick quote" for rental

7

rates.

8

United States District Court

The website's interactive features included options to contact

6

For the Northern District of California

5

examples of requests for information submitted to Regus through the

9

website.

During jurisdictional discovery, Regus plc turned over

One example was a request for information from a

10

potential customer seeking "executive suite space in San

11

Francisco."

12

seal).

13

response it give to inquiries through the website's "contact us"

14

feature.

15

products that Regus offers.

16

name, address, and other information.

17

or any other Regus entity.

18

asserts that RMG, not Regus plc, handled these interactive features

19

of the website.

20

and at this stage factual disputes are resolved in their favor.

21

Even if the Court were to agree that RMG actually operated the

22

interactive features, the absence of any reference to RMG on the

23

website or the response to the "contact us" inquiry would render

24

RMG Regus plc's ostensible agent in operation of those features.

25

Therefore, Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that Regus

26

plc operated -- either directly or through an agent -- a website

27
28

ECF No. 187-1 ("Garofolo Decl.") Ex. 9 (filed under

Regus plc also turned over an example of the sort of

That response provides additional information about the
Its footer lists Regus plc's corporate
There is no reference to RMG

ECF No. 189-4.

Once again, Regus plc

However, Plaintiffs' evidence suggests otherwise,

business in California, the stipulation only reports total revenue
figures for RMG.

13

1

with interactive features targeted at Californians and through

2

which Californians interacted with Regus.

3

reasons, the Court finds that operation of the regus.com website

4

was an intentional act aimed at California.

5

For all of these

Finally, the intentional act must cause harm the defendant

Ninth Circuit found that harm to Californians was foreseeable

8

United States District Court

knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.

7

For the Northern District of California

6

In Marvix, the

because a significant number of Californians would have bought the

9

plaintiff's publications.

Because the plaintiff alleged copyright

10

infringement of photographs in those publications, the court

11

concluded that it was foreseeable that "a jurisdictionally

12

significant amount of" the plaintiff's harm would be suffered in

13

California.

14

of harm suffered in California is even clearer.

15

website advertised office space in California to Californian

16

residents and businesses.

17

advertisements were misleading and thereby harmed Regus customers,

18

it was eminently predictable that those customers and that harm

19

would be in California.

20

purposefully directed the operations of the regus.com website at

21

California.

22
23

2.

Marvix, 647 F.3d at 1232-33.

Here, the foreseeability
The regus.com

If, as alleged, Defendants'

The Court finds that Regus plc

Claim arises out of the forum-related activities

The second requirement for specific jurisdiction is that

24

Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Regus plc's forum related

25

activities.

26

not have been injured 'but for' [Regus plc]'s conduct in

27

[California]." Rio Props., 284 F.3d 1007, 1021.

28

"This requirement is satisfied if [Plaintiffs] would

Here, Plaintiffs rented property advertised on the regus.com

14

claiming that Regus provided office space for a low monthly price.

3

According to Plaintiffs, they would not have rented office space

4

from Regus in the absence of the advertising on the website.

5

¶¶ 46, 57, 72.

6

office space in California through the website constituted an

7

activity purposefully directed at California.

8

United States District Court

website.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

They did so after viewing advertisements on the website

of Plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations, they would not

9

have rented office space from Regus absent Regus plc's forum-

SAC

As the Court found previously, the advertising of

Assuming the truth

10

related activities.

But for Regus plc's activities directed at

11

California, Plaintiffs' alleged injuries would not have occurred.

12

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims arise out of

13

Regus plc's forum-related activities.

14

C.

15

The Ninth Circuit has developed a multi-factor test for

16

Fair Play and Substantial Justice

assessing this aspect of specific personal jurisdiction:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

The exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable if it comports
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice. In determining reasonableness, seven factors are
considered: (1) the extent of a defendant's purposeful
interjection; (2) the burden on the defendant in
defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with
the sovereignty of the defendant's state; (4) the forum
state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the
most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
(6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's
interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the
existence of an alternative forum." Rio Props., 284 F.3d
at 1021.

24
25

Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie

26

showing under the first two prongs of the specific jurisdiction

27

test, the burden now shifts to Regus plc to show that the exercise

28

of personal jurisdiction would be unfair.

15

Regus plc asserts that it has not purposefully injected itself

1

here.

4

findings.

5

Rican internet business was amenable to suit in Nevada because it

6

had purposefully injected itself into Nevada by running print and

7

radio advertisements for its website in Nevada.

8

United States District Court

into California because it has no presence, operations, or assets

3

For the Northern District of California

2

21.

9

directed at California, offering services which would be provided

Reply at 12.

That hardly matters given the Court's prior

In Rio Properties, the Ninth Circuit held that a Costa

Id. at 1012, 1020-

Here, Regus plc owned and operated a website with advertising

10

in California, and through which Californians interacted with

11

Regus.

12

injection into California favors the exercise of personal

13

jurisdiction.

14

The Court finds that the extent of Regus plc's purposeful

Regus plc also asserts that it would be burdened by defending

15

in California.

16

to any international defendant, and, as in Rio Properties, Regus

17

plc "would be so burdened defending in any judicial district in the

18

United States."

19

Regus plc cites no source of conflict with the sovereignty of its

20

home state.

21

adjudicating these claims.

22

in California and the fact it specifically advertises office space

23

here, California has a strong interest in ensuring that its

24

citizens are not harmed by Regus plc's actions.

25

That is likely true.

Id. at 1021.

However, it applies equally

With respect to the third factor,

By contrast, California has a strong interest in
Given the size of Regus plc's business

The fifth factor focuses on the location of the witnesses and

26

evidence.

See Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1060-61 (9th Cir.

27

2007).

28

evidence are here.

Plaintiffs assert that most (or all) of their witnesses and
Opp'n at 18.

Regus plc counters only by

16

1

rehashing its argument under the second factor -- that it would be

2

hard for Regus plc to litigate here.

3

finds that this factor, too, favors Plaintiffs.

4

Reply at 12.

Thus the Court

The sixth factor assesses the importance of the forum to

paramount importance," Menken, 503 F.3d at 1061, this factor favors

7

Plaintiffs.

8

United States District Court

Plaintiffs' effective and convenient relief.

6

For the Northern District of California

5

San Francisco that would have a difficult time litigating

9

elsewhere.

10

Though "not of

Plaintiff Circle Click is a small business based in

Opp'n at 18.

The seventh factor considers the existence of a reasonable

11

alternative forum.

12

burden of proving the unavailability of such a forum.

13

conceivable alternative fora are the Channel Islands or Luxembourg,

14

where Regus plc is located.

15

their claims are grounded in California law and specific to

16

California.

17

Regus plc asserts that Plaintiffs bear the
The only

However, Plaintiffs point out that

They might therefore be unavailable elsewhere.

On balance, the factors weigh considerably in favor of the

18

reasonable exercise of personal jurisdiction over Regus plc.

The

19

first and fourth factors militate particularly strongly in favor of

20

personal jurisdiction.

21

jurisdiction as well, though perhaps not quite so powerfully.

22

third and seventh are neutral.

23

but not in any way unusual for an international defendant.

24

the Ninth Circuit has found that "the factors weigh overwhelmingly

25

in favor of the reasonable exercise of personal jurisdiction" under

26

similar circumstances.

27

Court finds that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Regus

28

plc comports with the traditional notions of fair play and

The fifth and sixth favor personal
The

Only the second favors Regus plc,
Indeed,

See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1021.

17

The

1

substantial justice.

2
3
4
5

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Regus plc's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

Dated: October 14, 2014

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18