Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11 STEPHEN HENDRICKS,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
NEW VIDEO CHANNEL AMERICA, )
)
LLC dba BBC AMERICA; TEMPLE )
STREET PRODUCTIONS; TEMPLE )
STREET PRODUCTIONS (US)
)
INC.; DAVID FORTIER; GRAEME )
)
MANSON; JOHN FAWCETT; and
)
Does 1 to 50, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
2:14-cv-02989-RSWL-SSx
ORDER re: Temple Street
Productions Incorporated
and David Fortiers
Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2) [30]
22
Currently before the Court is specially appearing
23
Defendants Temple Street Productions Incorporated and
24
David Fortiers (collectively, Defendants) Motion to
25
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to
26
Rule 12(b)(2) [30] (Motion).
27
28
1
I. BACKGROUND
Id. 7.
18
The
Id.
Where
Under Californias
Doe v.
Adv.
Id.
Personal
Id.; Daimler AG v.
III. DISCUSSION
10 A.
Evidentiary Objections
11
See Becker v.
General Jurisdiction
21
The
1.
TSPI
Daimler, 134 S.
Fortier Decl. 3.
As
28
6
Daimler, 134
Id. at 755-56.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Id.
Id.
Yet the Supreme Court noted that general jurisdiction is not
necessarily limited to only those forums where the corporation is
incorporated or has its principal place of business, as
demonstrated by Perkins and alluded to in Goodyear when the Court
mentions, and does not reject, the idea of piercing the corporate
veil for jurisdictional purposes, see Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2857 (2011).
Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760-61.
It also does not appear that the Supreme Court completely
rejected a theory of general jurisdiction based on a parent
corporations contacts with a forum through its subsidiary,
though the bounds of such general jurisdiction are unclear. The
Supreme Court seemed to engage in a mini analysis of such general
jurisdiction, but focused not on the subsidiarys contacts with
the forum, but on the parents engagement with the forum, even if
the parents contacts with the forum were by way of its
subsidiary: e.g., the Supreme Court found that the parents
contacts with the forum did not render it at home because
neither the parent nor the subsidiary were incorporated in
California, nor did the parent or the subsidiary have its
principal place of business in California. Id. at 761-62.
28
9
2.
Fortier
Goodyear
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Fortier Decl. 2.
28
11
The
See id.
As such,
Specific Jurisdiction
13
17 (N.D. Cal. 1981); cf. Martensen v. Koch, 942 F. Supp. 2d 983, 992
(N.D. Cal. 2013); see also Fairchild v. Barot, 946 F. Supp. 2d
28
12
Id.
28
13
1.
Purposeful Availment
12 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010); see Holland Am. Line
13 Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th
14 Cir. 2007).
15
17
18 individual acting in his official capacity when either the
corporation is the agent or alter ego of the individual, or
28
14
See
a.
Purposeful Direction
Brayton,
Id.
i. Intentional Act
An intentional act for purposes of the effects test
Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 899 (9th
Cir. 2002).
28
16
27
28
17
2.
24
10
28
20
11
28
21
This factor
27
28
25
As
18
12
28
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21 DATED: June 8, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27