Pepper, N.A. v. Expandi, Inc. et al

Filing 24

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Re: Dkt. No. 15 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/17/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PEPPER, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No.15-cv-04066-NC
TENATIVE RULING ON MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
EXPANDI, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Defendants.

15
16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack

17

of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The Court has also considered

18

plaintiff’s argument that such arguments are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and

19

collateral estoppel. The Court tentatively finds that this argument would only preclude

20

defendants from arguing that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois. As to

21

personal jurisdiction over Netpartnering Limited and Expandi Limited in California, the

22

Court tentatively finds that these defendants purposefully availed themselves of the

23

benefits of California law when they attended a pitch meeting in the Northern District of

24

California with HP. For questions of specific jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit has

25

established a three-prong test:

26

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or

27

consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform

28

some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting
Case No.15-cv-04066-NC

1
2
3
4
5

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

6

Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor

7

Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the

8

first two prongs of the test. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The parties should be

9

prepared to address this test at the November 18 hearing.

10

If the Court finds that specific jurisdiction exists, defendants still argue that the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

United Kingdom is a better forum. Defendants should be prepared to identify any cases

12

that have dismissed a complaint based on forum non conveniens, when the defendants are

13

subject to specific, and not general jurisdiction.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: November 17, 2015

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.15-cv-04066-NC

2