Flipboard, Inc. v. Amorphous

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FLIPBOARD, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03255-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
9
10

KALLIOPE AMORPHOUS,

[Re: ECF 17]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF

13
14

17. Defendant, a pro se Rhode Island resident, argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over her,

15

and that asserting such jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

16

justice. Id. Plaintiff responds that Defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in this forum and

17

that the Court additionally has specific jurisdiction over Defendant as a result of her contacts with

18

California. ECF 27. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to

19

dismiss.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Flipboard, Inc. alleges that its principal place of business is located in Palo Alto,

22

California. Compl., ECF 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff describes itself as an online service that “allows users to

23

view a variety of online content, including images . . . in interactive magazine-style layouts and, if

24

they choose, share their personalized collections with others.” Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that it stores

25

some of the content it makes accessible pursuant to a license, id. ¶ 6, or the Digital Millennium

26

Copyright Act (“DMCA”), id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that the remaining content is served from other

27

online locations, including websites like Flickr, Tumblr, and Bored Panda, through, among other

28

things, application protocol interfaces (“APIs”). Id. ¶ 8.

1

Defendant Kalliope Amorphous is a visual artist residing in Rhode Island. Id. ¶ 2;

2

Amorphous Mot. Decl., ECF 17-1 ¶ 6. She has posted her photographs on various online services,

3

including Bored Panda, Flickr, and Tumblr. Compl. ¶ 2; Amorphous Mot. Decl. ¶ 5.
Plaintiff alleges that, on June 5, 2015, Plaintiff received a letter from Barbara Hoffman,

4
5

New York counsel for Defendant1 (“Defendant’s New York Counsel”), at its Palo Alto office. Id.

6

¶ 10; Willen Decl., ECF 28 ¶ 2. The letter was addressed to Plaintiff’s General Counsel in Palo

7

Alto and described Plaintiff as a company “with its principal place of business in Palo Alto,

8

California.” Willen Decl. ¶ 2 and Exh. A at 1.
The letter claimed that Plaintiff was infringing Defendant’s copyright on images she had

9

posted on Bored Panda. Compl. ¶ 10. In the letter, Defendant’s New York Counsel stated, “[I]t

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

would be simple enough for Ms. Amorphous, my client, to file suit against [Plaintiff] for copyright

12

infringement and seek the maximum statutory damages.” Id. ¶ 11; Willen Decl. Exh. A at 1. The

13

letter claimed that Defendant “is entitled to three million dollars.” Id.
On June 10, 2015, an attorney in New York representing Plaintiff responded. Compl. ¶ 12.

14
15

Over the next several days, Plaintiff’s New York attorney and Defendant’s New York Counsel

16

exchanged four additional letters or emails and one call, in which Defendant’s New York Counsel

17

additionally accused Plaintiff of improperly taking Defendant’s images from Flickr and Tumblr

18

and continued to note the possibility of litigation. Id. ¶¶ 13-17.
On June 24, 2015, Defendant’s New York Counsel wrote Plaintiff’s New York attorney

19
20

that she was “willing to settle for one million dollars.” Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff’s New York attorney

21

rejected the offer on June 30, 2015, and asked for additional information regarding the copyrighted

22

works and registrations Defendant claimed Plaintiff was infringing. Id. ¶ 19. On July 8,

23

Defendant’s New York Counsel sent information about her client’s works on Flickr and Tumblr,

24

“along with some screenshots showing the ways that Defendant herself had used those works in

25

connection with the Flipboard application.” Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provided no

26
1

27
28

Ms. Hoffman is “a lawyer who has represented [Defendant] for several years . . . in New York
City.” Amorphous Mot. Decl. ¶ 7. Ms. Hoffman was “unable with due diligence to find a lawyer
who could timely and competently represent [Defendant] at a price she could afford in California.”
Hoffman Mot. Decl., ECF 17-5 ¶ 7. As a result, Defendant is proceeding pro se in this action.
2

1

evidence of any other Flipboard user accessing, incorporating, copying, or sharing those works

2

through its services. Id. On July 13, 2015, the attorneys spoke again and Defendant’s New York

3

Counsel allegedly repeated her one million dollar settlement offer while noting the possibility of

4

court action. Id. ¶ 21.

5

Later that day, Plaintiff filed this action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement

6

pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, the Copyright Act of 1976, 17

7

U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1202, and

8

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
On July 27, 2015, Defendant, represented by her New York Counsel, filed an action for

9

direct and contributory copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA in the Southern District

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of New York (“New York Case”). See Amorphous Mot. Decl. Exh. A, ECF 17-2; see also

12

Amorphous v. Flipboard, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-05802-KPF.
On September 21, 2015, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of personal

13
14

jurisdiction.2 Plaintiff opposed on October 15, 2015 and Defendant replied on October 21, 2015,

15

ECF 31. The Court heard oral argument on this motion on November 12, 2015, with Defendant

16

appearing by phone. On October 16, 2015, Plaintiff moved to transfer the New York Case here. A

17

decision on that motion has not yet been issued.
II.

18

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) authorizes a defendant to seek dismissal of an

19
20

action for lack of personal jurisdiction. When a defendant challenges a court’s personal

21

jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction over the defendant is

22

proper. Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015).

23
2

24
25
26
27
28

Defendant’s motion also includes a section entitled “Failure to State a Claim.” Mot. at 13.
However, neither in that section nor anywhere else in her Motion or Notice of Motion does
Defendant ask the Court to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim. To the extent that the
section can be construed as moving for dismissal for failure to state a claim, it is not supported by
any facts or arguments. Rather, Defendant incorporates by reference legal arguments included in
the declaration of her New York Counsel. Id.; Hoffman Mot. Decl., ¶¶ 17, 24.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-5(b), the Court STRIKES all legal argument included in the
Hoffman Declaration in support of the Motion to Dismiss. In addition, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent that it is based on failure to state a claim.
3

“Where, as here, the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an

1
2

evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to

3

withstand the motion to dismiss.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 (internal quotation marks and citation

4

omitted). The plaintiff may meet that burden by submitting affidavits and discovery materials. Doe

5

v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). A “plaintiff may not simply rest on the bare

6

allegations of the complaint. But uncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, and conflicts

7

between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor.”

8

Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068.
Where no applicable federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, “the law of the state in

9

which the district court sits applies.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). “California’s long-arm statute allows courts to exercise

12

personal jurisdiction over defendants to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the

13

United States Constitution.” Id. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction “consistent with due

14

process only if [the defendant] has ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum such that

15

the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial

16

justice.’” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205

17

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).

18

“The strength of contacts required depends on which of the two categories of personal

19

jurisdiction a litigant invokes: specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at

20

1068. Here, Plaintiff asserts only specific jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction can exist when the

21

defendant’s contacts with the forum state are limited if the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate

22

to those contacts. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014).

23

III.

DISCUSSION

24

A. Consent

25

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on consent. “[I]t is

26

settled . . . that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given

27

court.” National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316 (1964). Where the defendant

28

has consented to California jurisdiction, the “court need not embark on a ‘minimum contacts’
4

1

analysis.” Craigslist, Inc. v. Kerbel, No. C–11–3309 EMC, 2012 WL 3166798 at *6 (N.D. Cal.

2

Aug. 2, 2012) (quoting Zenger-Miller, Inc. v. Training Team, GmbH, 757 F. Supp. 1062, 1069

3

(N.D. Cal. 1991).

4

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s consent to Flipboard’s terms of use (“TOU”), which

5

include a California forum selection clause, suffices to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction

6

over her. Opp. at 9; Creemer Decl., ECF 29 ¶¶ 13, 14. The TOU state, “we each agree that any

7

[non-arbitrable] claims shall be litigated exclusively in a state court located in Santa Clara County,

8

California, and you consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.” Creemer Decl. Exh. A at 5.

9

Courts have applied the consent principle to forum selection clauses in website terms of
use. Id. “Forum selection clauses [in TOUs] are presumptively valid.” Kerbel, 2012 WL 3166798

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

at *6 (citing Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)).

12

Defendant admits that she “adopt[ed] the role of ‘user’” on Plaintiff’s service. Amorphous

13

Reply Decl., ECF 32 ¶ 15. And she has exhibited a high level of familiarity with website terms of

14

service and use. Defendant “relied on the protection of the . . . TOS of Bored Panda, Flickr, and

15

Tumblr,” Exh. A ¶9, and asserts personal knowledge of the terms for the Flickr and Tumblr APIs,

16

Amorphous Mot. Decl. ¶¶ 20-27. Defendant asserts that she chose Flickr and Tumblr as her

17

“primary photo hosting services due to [their] strict copyright policies.” Reply at 7.

18

In the face of this consent, “the only issue for the court is whether the contracts are unfair

19

or unreasonable.” Kerbel, 2012 WL 3166798 at *6. “The party disputing the validity of a forum

20

selection clause bears the burden of proving the clause is unenforceable.” Naturemarket, 694 F.

21

Supp. 2d at 1052.

22

Defendant first argues that enforcing Plaintiff’s forum selection clause here would be

23

“patently unreasonable” because she “had to access Flipboard” in order to document the alleged

24

infringement. Reply at 18-19. This left her with “an overreaching and deceptive Catch 22”: she

25

could either have proof of Plaintiff’s infringement but be subject to suit in California, or she could

26

reject the forum selection clause but deprive herself of the proof she needed to bring the New

27

York Case. Id. at 18-19.

28

Plaintiff responds that Defendant joined Flipboard and agreed to its TOU not to document
5

1

infringement, but to manufacture it. Opp. at 10; Creemer Decl. ¶ 13. Specifically, Plaintiff argues

2

that, to establish Plaintiff’s secondary liability for copyright infringement, Defendant needed to

3

show infringement by a third party but had no proof that any Flipboard user had accessed her

4

work; to rectify this, Plaintiff contends, Defendant “used her own account on Flipboard to

5

manufacture the supposed ‘infringements’ for which she seeks to hold Flipboard secondarily

6

liable.” Opp. at 9-10.
To the extent that the parties’ affidavits have created a factual dispute,3 the Court must

7
8

resolve the disagreement in Plaintiff’s favor for the purposes of this motion. See Bancroft &

9

Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, the Court assumes
that Defendant joined Plaintiff’s service in order to manufacture at least some of the alleged

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

infringement and finds Defendant’s catch-22 argument unavailing.

12

Defendant next contends that enforcing the forum selection here would be unfair or

13

unreasonable as it would “effectively depriv[e] her of her day in court.” But Defendant is, in fact,

14

having her day in court, albeit as a defendant and in California.
Finally, Defendant argues that enforcing the forum selection clause would be unreasonable

15
16

because litigating here would impose a “substantial and impossible” financial burden on her and

17

would “wrest [her] from her long-time attorney in New York.” Reply at 19-20. But, “[w]ith the

18

advances in transportation and telecommunications and the increasing interstate practice of law,

19

any burden of litigation in a forum other than one’s residence is substantially less than in days

20

past.” CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1080 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

21

quotation marks and citation omitted). As demonstrated at the November 10, 2015 hearing,

22

Defendant can minimize costs by e-filing and appearing by phone. With regard to access to

23

counsel, Defendant employs a regular attorney in New York, Amorphous Mot. Decl. ¶ 7, and

24

“qualified for the service of the California Lawyers for the Arts but was not provided with an

25

attorney with the appropriate qualifications given the short time frame.” Id. ¶ 43. Thus, Defendant

26
3

27
28

Though Defendant included six examples of alleged infringement of her Bored Panda
photographs “by third parties unknown to [Defendant] using the Flipboard magazine creation
service,” Amorphous Reply Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9, Plaintiff contends that Defendant had no examples of
third-party infringement of the works she posted on Flickr or Tumblr.
6

1

should be able to either redirect the financial resources she uses to hire her regular attorney in New

2

York to find assistance here, or, with more time, she should be able to access an attorney through

3

the California Lawyers for the Arts.
Given Defendant’s high level of understanding of the TOU, and taking Plaintiff’s

4
5

contention that Defendant only joined Plaintiff’s service to manufacture infringement for the

6

purposes of litigation as true, the Court finds that enforcement of the forum selection clause here is

7

neither unfair nor unreasonable. While the Court does not find that mere use of a website is

8

sufficient to justify exercising personal jurisdiction over the user, the Court finds that, under the

9

unique circumstances of this case, Defendant’s consent to jurisdiction here is valid and binding.4
Cf. Zenger-Miller, 757 F. Supp. at 1069; Automattic Inc. v. Steiner,82 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1022

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(N.D. Cal. 2015).

12

B. Specific Jurisdiction

13

Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that, even if Defendant had not consented to personal

14

jurisdiction, the Court could still assert specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant “based on her

15

purposeful availment of California’s forum and conduct intentionally directed at this state.” Opp.

16

at 13. The Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-prong test to determine whether a defendant has

17

sufficient “minimum contacts” with a forum to justify specific jurisdiction:

18

(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;

19
20

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forumrelated activities; and

21
22

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

23
24

Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1206. If Plaintiff satisfies the first two prongs of this test, the burden then

25

shifts to Defendant to present a “compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would be

26
27
4

28

In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach Plaintiff’s alternative argument regarding
jurisdiction on the basis of Defendant’s consent to Flickr’s terms of service.
7

1

unreasonable. CollegeSource., 653 F.3d at 1076 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471

2

U.S. 462, 476–78 (1985)).

3

i.

4

In tort cases, the Ninth Circuit “typically inquire[s] whether a defendant ‘purposefully

5

directs his activities’ at the forum state, applying an ‘effects’ test that focuses on the forum in

6

which the defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the

7

forum.” Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1206 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984)). The

8

Ninth Circuit construes Calder “to impose three requirements: the defendant allegedly [must] have

9

(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Purposeful Direction

defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had two relevant sets of contact with California. First, a

12

“barrage of demand letters to Plaintiff in California.” Plaintiff correctly notes that a cease and

13

desist letter alone is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See id. at

14

1208. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the letter suffices when combined with Defendant’s second

15

form of contact with California: her alleged attempts to disrupt the business relationships of

16

Plaintiff, which she knew is located in California. Opp. at 14-15. Plaintiff contends that Defendant

17

reached out to several of its online business partners to allege that Plaintiff was stealing their

18

content and violating their terms. Id. at 15. Plaintiff argues that Defendant took these actions “to

19

coerce [Plaintiff] into accepting her demands” and knew “full well that the disruption she was

20

seeking to cause . . . would be felt by [Plaintiff] in California, where it is based.” Id. at 15.

21

To support its argument that these contacts suffice to establish purposeful direction,

22

Plaintiff relies on two Ninth Circuit cases: Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et

23

L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) and Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat.

24

Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000). Both cases hold that a district court can exercise jurisdiction

25

over a defendant on the basis of a cease and desist letter when combined with additional forum-

26

related contact.

27

In Yahoo!, the plaintiff, an American Internet service provider, sued two French

28

defendants who had had three contacts with California, the forum state: first, a cease and desist
8

1

letter, 433 F.3d at 1208; second, service of process on the plaintiff for lawsuits commenced in

2

France, id. at 1209; and, third, two interim court orders from the French court directing the

3

plaintiff to take action in California, id. Unlike Plaintiff here, the Yahoo! plaintiff did not contend

4

that the defendants’ allegations were untrue or ill-intentioned; rather, the plaintiff worried that

5

full compliance with the interim orders was technologically impossible and so filed an action

6

seeking declaratory judgment that the interim orders were not recognizable or enforceable in the

7

United States. Id. at 1205. The court held that “the first two contacts, taken by themselves, do not

8

provide sufficient basis for jurisdiction” but that the combination of the three contacts does. Id. at

9

1208.

10

In Bancroft, the plaintiff, a California corporation, alleged that the defendant engaged in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

two sets of contacts with California. First, as here, it sent a cease and desist letter, 223 F.3d at

12

1085, and, second, it sent a letter to Network Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”), the then-sole register of

13

domain names in the United States, challenging the plaintiff’s use of a domain name. Id. The

14

second letter triggered NSI’s dispute resolution policy, which gave the plaintiff three options:

15

hand over the domain name to the defendant, allow the defendant to use the domain name

16

without fully surrendering it, or obtain a declaratory judgment establishing its right to use the

17

domain name. Id. The plaintiff chose the third option and filed suit.

18

Like Defendant here, the Bancroft defendant contended that its actions “aimed only at

19

protecting its intellectual property rights.” Id. at 1087; see Reply at 6 (“Defendant never

20

threatened to sue Tumblr or Flickr, she simply asked these services a question”). But, like

21

Plaintiff here, the Bancroft plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deliberately interfering with

22

the plaintiff’s business. 223 F.3d at 1087. Because the court was engaging in jurisdictional

23

analysis, it adopted plaintiff’s version of the events, id., and concluded that plaintiff had satisfied

24

the Calder effects test, id. at 1088. The court found that sending the second letter was

25

intentional; that it was expressly aimed at California because it individually targeted the plaintiff,

26

a California corporation; and that the effects were “primarily felt, as [defendant] knew they

27

would be, in California.” Id.

28

The Court finds Bancroft instructive: as in Bancroft, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
9

1

individually targeted it, a California corporation, by intentionally misrepresenting its intellectual

2

property practices to third parties. The Court finds that the Defendant’s alleged outreach to Flickr

3

and Tumblr specifically targeted Plaintiff, which she knew to be a corporation with its principal

4

place of business in California,5 thereby satisfying the first two prongs of the Calder effects test.
The third prong of the Calder effects test requires a plaintiff to show that “a

5
6

jurisdictionally sufficient amount of harm is suffered in the forum state.” Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at

7

1210. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to identify any actual harm from her actions.

8

Reply at 9. However, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s outreach has disrupted its business in

9

California. Following Defendant’s communications, “Flickr reached out to [Plaintiff] on July 13,
2015,” Willen Decl. ¶12, causing Plaintiff to expend time and resources to deal with potential

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reputational harm, including, in part, the filing of this lawsuit. Id. ¶ 13. Given that Plaintiff felt

12

the need to expend resources on litigation to “remove the cloud of uncertainty created by

13

Defendant’s demands and threats,” Compl. ¶ 23, the Court finds that the final element of the

14

Calder effects test is satisfied. See Automattic Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d at 1024 (finding allegations

15

that the plaintiff “spent substantial time and resources in dealing with the ‘meritless’ takedown

16

notices and suffered reputational harm” sufficient for the third Calder prong).
ii.

17

Claim Arises Out of Forum-Related Contacts

The Court must next consider whether Plaintiff’s claim arises out of Defendant’s alleged

18
19

forum-related contacts. Bancroft, 223 F. 3d at 1088. The Ninth Circuit measures this “in terms of

20

‘but for’ causation.” Id. The requirement is met here: but for Defendant’s demand letters and

21

alleged interference with Plaintiff’s business relationships, Plaintiff would not have felt the need

22

to file this declaratory action. Opp. at 19; see also Bancroft, 223 F. 3d at 1088.
iii.

23

Reasonableness

Finally, the Court must determine whether exercising specific jurisdiction in this case

24
25
5

26
27
28

Defendant argues that she believed that she was corresponding with Flickr and Tumblr in New
York. Amorphous Reply Decl. ¶ 24. However, as Bancroft explains, the relevant inquiry is not
where a defendant believes the communication is happening but, rather, where she believes the
effect of that communication will occur. A letter—or phone call or email—sent to an entity in
another state can nevertheless be “expressly aimed at California because it individually target[s] . .
. a California corporation.” 223 F. 3d at 1088.
10

1

would be reasonable or, in other words, “comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Id.

2

(citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476). The reasonableness inquiry considers seven factors: (1)

3

the extent of the defendant's purposeful interjection into the forum state, (2) the burden on the

4

defendant in defending in the forum, (3) the extent of the conflict with the sovereignty of the

5

defendant's state, (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (5) the most efficient

6

judicial resolution of the controversy, (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in

7

convenient and effective relief, and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. Id. Defendant bears

8

the burden of demonstrating unreasonableness via a “compelling case.” Id. Defendant addresses

9

each of these factors in her papers. Mot. at 11-13; Reply at 8-14.
The Court has already considered versions of the first two factors above, finding that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant purposefully interjected herself into California’s affairs by specifically and knowingly

12

targeting Plaintiff, a California corporation, and that the burden on Defendant in litigating in

13

California is not so great as to deprive her of her day in court.

14

With regard to the third factor—conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state—

15

Defendant argues that “New York is the center of the international art world and many of

16

Plaintiff and Defendant’s clients are present in New York.” Mot. at 12. Setting aside the question

17

of whether “defendant’s state” here is Rhode Island or New York, Defendant’s argument does

18

not identify potential conflict with either state’s sovereignty. This case arises out of federal law

19

and involves interpretation of TOU governed by California law. Thus, exercising jurisdiction in

20

this case should not conflict with the sovereignty of Rhode Island, where Defendant resides, or

21

New York, where Defendant has filed suit. Craigslist, Inc. v. Mesiab, C 08-05064 (MEJ), 2009

22

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132433 at *24 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009), report and recommendation

23

adopted, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132434 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009).

24

Fourth, Defendant argues that California has no interest in adjudicating this dispute because

25

Defendant is a nonresident and Plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware with an office in New York.

26

Mot. at 12. As discussed at length above, however, Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in

27

California. The Court therefore has an interest in adjudicating this dispute to protect Plaintiff, a

28

California corporation, from the allegedly wrongful acts of a nonresident. Mesiab, 2009 U.S.
11

1

Dist. LEXIS 132433 at *24.

2

For the fifth factor, Defendant argues that none of the records, files, or witnesses favorable

3

to her are located in California but does not identify any such evidence or witnesses. Plaintiff, on

4

the other hand, asserts that virtually all relevant records and systems, as well as all key Plaintiff

5

witnesses, are located or managed in Palo Alto and provides specifics. Tobin Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-11;

6

Willen Decl. ¶ 18.

7

With regard to the sixth and seventh factors, Defendant argues that New York presents an

8

alternative forum that would provide Plaintiff with convenient and effective relief. However,

9

Defendant has not shown that New York is a preferable forum. Having weighed the seven

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

factors, the Court finds that asserting jurisdiction over Defendant is reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court further
DIRECTS Defendant to notify the New York court of this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: December 10, 2015

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12