Pandigital, Inc. v. DistriPartners B.V.
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 20 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 12-01588 CW
PANDIGITAL, INC.,
DISTRIPARTNERS B.V.,
11
Defendant.
12
13
________________________________/
14
15
Defendant DistriPartners B.V. moves to dismiss Plaintiff
16
Pandigital Inc.’s First Amended Complaint.
17
dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction and the doctrine
18
of forum non conveniens.
19
motion will be decided on the papers.
20
papers filed by the parties, the Court hereby denies Defendant’s
21
motion.
Plaintiff opposes the motion.1
Having considered the
Plaintiff Pandigital is a Delaware corporation with its
24
principal place of business in California.
25
Complaint (FAC) at ¶ 1.
26
27
28
The
BACKGROUND
22
23
Defendant seeks
1
First Amended
Plaintiff manufactures consumer
Plaintiff objects to various statements contained in
declarations filed in support of Defendant’s motion. The Court
has reviewed Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections and has not relied
on any inadmissible evidence. The Court will not discuss each
objection individually.
1
electronics.
FAC at ¶ 8.
Defendant DistriPartners is a
2
Netherlands company.
3
an agreement between the parties under which Defendant acted as a
4
distributor for Plaintiff’s products in various European
5
countries.
6
permitted to purchase Plaintiff’s products on credit and to remit
7
payment at a later date.
8
failed to pay for over $270,000 worth of products provided under
9
this agreement.
See FAC at ¶ 2.
FAC at ¶ 8.
This dispute arises out of
Through this agreement, Defendant was
Id.
FAC at ¶ 9.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Defendant argues that the Court
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
lacks personal jurisdiction over it.
In the alternative,
11
Defendant argues that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant
12
to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
13
Plaintiff alleges that Guido Liber, a representative of
14
Defendant, emailed Plaintiff’s sales department, inquiring about
15
opportunities to distribute Plaintiff’s products in Europe.
16
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 4.
17
between Liber and Alex Dalesio, Vice President of International
18
Business Development for Plaintiff, Dalesio and another
19
representative of Plaintiff met with Liber in Belgium.
20
Dec. at ¶¶ 5-7.
Following email and telephone correspondence
Dalesio
21
Plaintiff asserts that, during that meeting, Liber proposed
22
that DistriPartners act as a sales representative for Pandigital
23
in Germany and there was no discussion of DistriPartners acting as
24
a distributor of Pandigital products.
25
parties did not reach any agreement at the meeting in Belgium but,
26
when Plaintiff’s relationship with its sales representative in
27
Germany ended, it began negotiating with Defendant to fill that
28
role.
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 9.
2
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 7.
The
1
Defendant began acting as a sales representative for
2
Defendant in May 2010.
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 14.
In November 2010
3
Defendant asked to operate as a distributor for Plaintiff.
4
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 15.
5
products from Pandigital and re-sell them to customers in Europe.
6
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 15.
7
Defendant applied for credit with Sourcing Network Sales LLC,
8
doing business as Pandigital, in order to receive products on
9
credit.
In that role, Defendant would purchase
In furtherance of its role as distributor,
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 15.
Defendant subsequently submitted
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
purchase orders for Plaintiff’s products between November 2010 and
11
February 2011.
12
generated invoices dated between November 2010 and May 2011 for
13
the amounts owed by Defendant for the products supplied.
14
Dec. at ¶ 18 and Ex. A-10.
15
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 17 and Ex. A-9.
Plaintiff then
Dalesio
In March 2011, Rene Durieux and Liber traveled to Plaintiff’s
16
headquarters in Dublin, California to meet with Plaintiff to
17
discuss the parties’ relationship and to plan for future
18
developments.
Dalesio Dec. ¶ 20
19
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes it $277,322.98 for
20
products it supplied to Defendant for which Defendant has not paid
21
it.
22
breach of contract, quantum valebant, and account stated.
FAC at ¶¶ 9-11.
Plaintiff alleges three causes of action:
DISCUSSION
23
24
25
A.
Personal Jurisdiction
Under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
26
a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
27
The plaintiff then bears the burden of demonstrating that the
28
court has jurisdiction.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
3
1
374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
To satisfy this burden, the
2
plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true would support
3
jurisdiction over the defendant.”
4
1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995).
5
complaint must be taken as true.
6
Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996).
7
not assume the truth of such allegations if they are contradicted
8
by affidavit.
9
Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977).
Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d
Uncontroverted allegations in the
AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles
However, the court may
Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs.,
If the plaintiff also
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
submits admissible evidence, conflicts in the evidence must be
11
resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.
12
AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588.
There are two independent limitations on a court’s power to
13
exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: the
14
applicable state personal jurisdiction rule and constitutional
15
principles of due process.
16
(9th Cir. 1990); Data Disc, Inc., 557 F.2d at 1286.
17
California’s jurisdictional statute is co-extensive with federal
18
due process requirements, jurisdictional inquiries under state law
19
and federal due process standards merge into one analysis.
20
v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 587 (9th Cir. 1993).
21
Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361
Because
Rano
The exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
22
violates the protections created by the due process clause unless
23
the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum
24
state that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend
25
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
26
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
27
Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.
28
Plaintiff does not argue that the Court has general
4
1
jurisdiction over Defendant.
Specific jurisdiction is analyzed
2
using a three-prong test: (1) the non-resident defendant must
3
purposefully direct its activities or consummate some transaction
4
with the forum or a resident thereof; or perform some act by which
5
it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
6
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
7
protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises
8
out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities;
9
and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.
Lake v.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987).
11
conditions is required for asserting specific jurisdiction.
12
Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Marina Salina Cruz, 649 F.2d 1266, 1270
13
(9th Cir. 1981).
14
Each of these
A showing that a defendant “purposefully availed” itself of
15
the privilege of doing business in a forum state typically
16
consists of evidence of the defendant's actions in the forum, such
17
as executing or performing a contract there.
18
F.3d at 802.
19
the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into the
20
forum state court based on its contacts.
21
Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
22
availment test is met where “the defendant has taken deliberate
23
action within the forum state or if he has created continuing
24
obligations to forum residents.”
25
Schwarzenegger, 374
The requirement of purposeful availment ensures that
World-Wide Volkswagen
The purposeful
Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1498.
The second factor requires that the claim arise out of or
26
result from the defendant's forum-related activities.
27
arises out of a defendant's conduct if the claim would not have
28
arisen “but for” the defendant's forum-related contacts.
5
A claim
1
Panavision Int'l v. L.P.v. Toeppa, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir.
2
1998).
3
Once the plaintiff has satisfied the first two factors, the
4
defendant bears the burden of overcoming a presumption that
5
jurisdiction is reasonable by presenting a compelling case that
6
specific jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
7
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985); Haisten v. Grass Valley
8
Medical Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986).
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
a.
Burger King Corp. v.
Purposeful Availment and Arising Out Of
Here, it is undisputed that Defendant, a foreign company,
11
acted as a distributor for Plaintiff, a California company.
12
also undisputed that Defendant had extremely limited physical
13
contacts with the state of California.
14
communications between the parties occurred by telephone or email,
15
or at in-person meetings in Europe.
16
parties took place in California.
17
According to Defendant, that visit was the only time that any
18
representative of Defendant has ever been to California.
19
Dec. at ¶ 15.
20
It is
Virtually all of the
Only one meeting between the
Dalesio Dec. at ¶ 20.
Durieux
In support of its argument that the Court has specific
21
jurisdiction over Defendant, Plaintiff argues that Defendant
22
purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in
23
California when it approached Plaintiff about establishing a
24
business relationship and later entered into an ongoing business
25
relationship with Plaintiff.
26
the defendant engage in some form of affirmative conduct allowing
27
or promoting the transaction of business within the forum state.”
28
Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1990),
“Purposeful availment requires that
6
1
2
rev’d on other grounds, 499 U.S. 585 (1991).
The Ninth Circuit has held that “a non-resident defendant’s
3
act of soliciting business in the foreign state will generally be
4
considered purposeful availment if that solicitation results in
5
contract negoitations or the transaction of business.”
6
F.2d at 381, citing Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d
7
1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison
8
Co.; see also Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1331
9
(9th Cir. 1984); Taubler v. Giraud, 655 F.2d 991, 994 (9th Cir.
Shute, 897
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
1981).
11
California company, constitutes purposeful availment, and the
12
claims arise out of the business transactions that resulted from
13
that solicitation.
14
criteria for specific jurisdiction.
15
Defendant’s solicitation of business from Plaintiff, a
Accordingly, Plaintiff has met the first two
The cases cited by Defendant in support of its argument that
16
personal jurisdiction cannot be established are unavailing.
17
Several of Defendant’s citations concern general jurisdiction.
18
See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
19
408, 418 (1984); Gates Learjet, 743 F.2d at 1331; Thomas P.
20
Gonzales Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica,
21
614 F.2d 1247, 1254 (9th Cir. 1980).
22
involves a defendant soliciting business within the forum state.
b.
Reasonableness
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moreover, none of the cases
The final step of the specific jurisdiction inquiry requires
a court’s exercise of jurisdiction to be reasonable.
Inc., 577 F.2d at 1287.
Data Disc,
The Ninth Circuit considers seven factors
in assessing whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is reasonable: (1) the extent of the
7
1
defendant's purposeful interjection into the forum state's
2
affairs, (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the
3
forum, (3) conflicts of law between the forum state and the
4
defendant's home jurisdiction, (4) the forum state's interest in
5
adjudicating the dispute, (5) the most efficient judicial
6
resolution of the dispute, (6) the plaintiff's interest in
7
convenient and effective relief, and (7) the existence of an
8
alternative forum.
9
Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 128 (9th Cir. 1995); Roth v. Garcia Marquez,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical
942 F.2d 617, 623 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
Defendant’s primary argument is that forcing it to litigate
12
in California “would impose a heavy burden” on it because it “is
13
located and operates in the Netherlands, and has no resources to
14
be in California.”
15
the courts have long noted that “[i]mprovements in communication
16
and transportation have reduced much of the historical burden of
17
litigating in a distant forum.”
18
citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958); Raffaele v.
19
Compagnie Generale Maritime, S.A., 707 F.2d 395, 398 (1983).
20
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that unless the inconvenience
21
to a defendant “is so great as to constitute a deprivation of due
22
process, it will not overcome clear justifications for the
23
exercise of jurisdiction.”
24
on Defendant to litigate in California would be significant, but
25
Defendant has not shown that it would be so great as to deprive it
26
of due process.
27
successfully used technology and transportation to carry on the
28
business relationship at issue in this case.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 18.
However,
Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 841,
Caruth, 59 F.3d at 128-29.
The burden
As Plaintiff points out, Defendant has
8
1
Defendant further argues that it has not purposefully
2
interjected itself into the state.
However, as discussed above,
3
the Court has found that Defendant has sufficiently interjected
4
itself into California to satisfy the purposeful availment prong
5
of the specific jurisdiction analysis.
6
which Defendant has interjected itself into the state is not
7
great, the Court finds that the limited nature of the interjection
8
is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness.
9
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
11
C.
Although the degree to
12
Forum non Conveniens
Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the
13
grounds of forum non conveniens.
14
conveniens, the district court has discretion to decline to
15
exercise jurisdiction in a case where litigation in an alternative
16
forum would be more convenient for the parties.
17
on forum non conveniens is “an exceptional tool to be employed
18
sparingly.”
19
2000).
20
appropriate only where “the plaintiff's chosen forum imposes a
21
heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the
22
plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience
23
supporting his choice.”
24
235, 249 (1981).
25
Under the doctrine of forum non
Dismissal based
Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir.
The Supreme Court instructs that dismissal is ordinarily
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
In deciding whether to dismiss an action due to forum non
26
conveniens, the district court must “consider the availability of
27
an adequate alternative forum, and then . . . whether several
28
'private' and 'public' interest factors favor dismissal.”
9
Leetsch
1
v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
Defendant’s primary argument is, again, that it is a small
3
company, and the need for its employees to travel to the United
4
States would negatively impact its business.
5
argues that travel to the Netherlands would not be burdensome for
6
Plaintiff.
7
the Netherlands that “are more than competent” to resolve
8
Plaintiff’s claims.
9
Defendant has not addressed any of the other private or public
Defendant also
Finally, Defendant asserts that there are courts in
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 19.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
interest factors the Court must consider.
See Lueck v. Sundstrand
11
Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1147-47 (9th Cir. 2001) (enumerating a non-
12
exclusive list of seven private interest and five public interest
13
factors to be considered by courts in evaluating forum non
14
conveniens arguments).
15
There is a strong presumption in favor of the domestic
16
plaintiff’s choice of forum, which can be overcome only when the
17
private and public factors clearly point towards trial in the
18
alternative forum.
19
Monegro, 211 F.3d at 514.
20
argument or evidence to overcome this presumption.
21
Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 265-66; Ravelo
Defendant has not provided sufficient
Because the Court finds that it has specific jurisdiction
22
over Defendant and rejects Defendant’s forum non conveniens
23
argument, it need not consider Plaintiff’s alternative argument
24
that this dispute is governed by a valid forum selection clause
25
identifying the state and federal courts of the State of
26
California as the exclusive fora.
27
28
10
1
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s
3
motion to dismiss.
A case management conference will be held in
4
this case on Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom
5
2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.
6
Civil L.R. 16-9(a), a joint Case Management Statement will be due
7
seven (7) days prior to the conference.
Pursuant to
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Dated: 12/14/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
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?