"Bachelor" Producers Vs "Reality Steve" Lawsuit: Exhibits For Declaration of Andrew W. DeFrancis - Ex Parte Application

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1
Filed 01/25/12 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:117
EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gregg A. Farley, SBN 115593 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY 11755 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1845 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 445-4024 Facsimile: (310) 445-4109 gfarley@farleyfirm.corn D. Bradley Kizzia (Pro Hac Vice pending) BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 Dallas, Texas 75225 Telephone: (469) 893-9940 Facsimile: (214) 613-3330 brad@brownfoxlaw.corn Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN CARBONE and REALITY STEVE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION ) Case No.: CV11-10118-GHK (Ex) NZK PRODUCTIONS INC., a California corporation, and HORIZON ) ALTERNATIVE TELEVISION INC., a) Delaware corporation, ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ) DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL Plaintiffs, vs. ) JURISDICTION STEPHEN CARBONE, an individual, ) and REALITY STEVE, LLC, a Texas ) Date: March 12, 2012 ) Time: 9:30 a.m. limited liability corporation, Defendants. ) Courtroom: 650
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Exhibit B Pane 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, March 12, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 650 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, Defendants Stephen Carbone ("Carbone") and Reality Steve, LLC ("Reality Steve") will and hereby do move the Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Unfair Competition for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
This Motion is made on the grounds that Defendants have no connection with California that would subject them to either general or specific personal jurisdiction in this Court, as articulated more fully in the accompanying memorandum and points and authorities. Defendants' Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Points and Authorities and the declaration of Stephen Carbone filed concurrently herewith, and on all pleadings and papers on file in this action. A proposed Order is also respectfully submitted herewith.
-2DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Exhibit B Page 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DATED: January
2012
BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC By: Vice pending) D. Bradley Kizzia Attorneys for Defen ants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC DATED: January
,-20
2012 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY
By:
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gregg A.1. ley Attorneys for Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC
92i),
-3DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Exhibit B Page 20
1 2
MEET AND CONFER COMPLIANCE

This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local
3 4 5 6
Rule 7-3, which took place on January 19, 2012. The parties were unable to resolve the issues presented in this Motion.
DATED: January
19
, 2012
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC By: D. Bradley Kizzia (P ending) Attorney for Defendants tephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC
_ Exhibit B Pace 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gregg A. Farley, SBN 115593 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY 11755 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1845 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 445-4024 Facsimile: (310) 445-4109 gfarley@farleyfirm.com D. Bradley Kizzia (Pro Hac Vice pending) BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 Dallas, Texas 75225 Telephone: (469) 893-9940 Facsimile: (214) 613-3330 brad@brownfoxlaw.corn Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN CARB ONE and REALITY STEVE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
) Case No.: CV11 10118 GHK (Ex) California corporation, and HORIZON ) ALTERNATIVE TELEVISION INC., a) Delaware corporation, ) DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM ) OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN Plaintiffs, ) SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ) DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL vs. ) JURISDICTION STEPHEN CARBONE, an individual, ) and REALITY STEVE, LLC, a Texas ) Date: March 12, 2012 limited liability corporation, ) Time: 9:30 a.m. Defendants. ) Courtroom: 650 NZK PRODUCTIONS INC., a
-
Exhibit B Page 22
1 2 3 4 5 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Defendants Stephen Carbone ("Carbone") and Reality Steve, LLC ("Reality Steve") respectfully submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
INTRODUCTION
8 9 10 11 12
Plaintiffs NZK Productions Inc. and Horizon Alternative Television Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have sued Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") for alleged tortuous interference with contractual relations and unfair competition, stemming solely from the existence of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
a passive website owned and maintained by a Texas entity and limited email correspondence sent from Texas to persons residing outside of California. Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants Carbone and Reality Steve. Both Reality Steve and Mr. Carbone are non-residents of California, and Plaintiffs have failed to plead, and cannot
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
prove, that Reality Steve or Mr. Carbone have sufficient minimum contacts with California to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by this Court. In contrast, the Declaration of Stephen Carbone submitted herewith conclusively establishes that neither Reality Steve nor Mr. Carbone has sufficient minimum contacts with California, and, therefore, the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over them would violate due process.
Exhibit B Page 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FACTS
Defendant Stephen Carbone ("Carbone") is an individual resident of the State of Texas, and serves as a member of Reality Steve, LLC ("Reality Steve"). (Ex. A, S. Carbone Declaration.
ij 2). Mr. Carbone lives and works in Texas, and
has done so at all material times. (Id.). He does not own or lease property in California, nor does he have a contractual relationship with any California residents. (Id. at IT 2-3). He does not do business in California, has no bank account in California, and does not pay business, property, or income taxes in California. (Id. at 3).
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendant Reality Steve is a Texas limited liability company formed under the law of the State of Texas. (Ex. A,
if
5). Stephen Carbone holds ninety-five
percent (95%) of the membership units in Reality Steve, and Yea! Network, LLC holds the remaining five percent (5%) 1 (Id. at
rg 5, 8).
Reality Steve does not conduct business in California. (Id. at 9). Reality Steve has no offices or employees in California, is not registered to do business in California, has no agent for service of process in California, neither owns or leases property in California, has no bank account in California, does not pay taxes in California, and has never done business with any California residents. (Id. at 910). Reality Steve does, however, operate a passive entertainment website from
Exhibit B Page 24
1 2
Texas that often includes information about television shows and other entertainment-related topics. (Id. at 7).
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Both Defendants were served with Summons in this case in Texas, not California. (Id. at
111
4, 12). The only specific contacts, communications, and/or
correspondence alleged by Plaintiffs (see Complaint,
TT 13-18) originated in Texas
and were sent to individuals who reside in states other than California. The pre-suit correspondence alleged by Plaintiffs to be sent to Defendants by Plaintiffs' counsel was sent to Defendants in Texas. ARGUMENT
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
I.
The Court Cannot Properly Exercise Personal Jurisdiction Over Either Defendant A. Legal Standards Governing Personal Jurisdiction
A federal court may, consistent with due process, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when that defendant has "minimum contacts" with the forum state. Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The presence of these "minimum contacts" ensures that the court's exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).
25 26 27 28
I Yea! Network, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company. It is registered to transact business and maintains an agent for service of process in Nevada, Texas and New York. Yea! Network is not registered to transact business and does not maintain an agent for service of process in California.
Exhibit B Page 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Applying the International Shoe test, courts have recognized two types of personal jurisdiction general and specific. General jurisdiction exists where the defendant's contacts with the forum state are systematic and pervasive, in which case jurisdiction may be asserted even if the dispute is unrelated to the contacts with the forum state. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). Where contacts are more limited and insufficient to permit a general assertion of jurisdiction, jurisdiction may be properly asserted only where the dispute relates directly to those limited contacts. Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 1993).
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
When a party seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the party seeking to establish jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. See Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). To meet this burden, "specific acts connecting defendant with the forum" must be established. Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1208 n.5 (9th Or. 1980). In other words, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts by affidavits or otherwise and cannot "simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint." Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
Exhibit B Page 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B.
There is No Bases For General Jurisdiction Over Either Defendant
The Court may exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only if that defendant has "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum. Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1086. This standard is "fairly high" and requires that the defendant's contacts be substantial enough to
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
"approximate physical presence." Id. (emphasis added). That standard cannot be satisfied here. In applying this test, courts consider "whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state's markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there,' as well as whether the defendant has a bank account, pays taxes, or advertises in the forum. Tuazon v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "Longevity, continuity, volume, economic impact, physical presence, and integration into the state's regulatory or economic markets are among the indicia of such a presence." Id. Defendants, however, lack the all of the types of "continuous and systematic" contacts with California that could "approximate physical presence" here.
25 26 27 28
Reality Steve is plainly not subject to the general jurisdiction of this Court. Indeed, Reality Steve's activities do not even remotely approximate physical presence in California. There have not been the "substantial, continuous and
Exhibit B Page 27
1 2 3 4 5 6
systematic" contacts required to establish general jurisdiction. For example,
Reality Steve has never been registered to do business in California, never paid any taxes there and has never transacted any business in that state. (Ex. A, 11 9-10). In addition, Reality Steve has never (1) maintained an office in California, (2) owned or possessed any real property or held any mortgages or liens in California, (3) had
8 9 10 11 12
bank accounts in California, (4) had telephone listings in California, or (5) had officers or employees in California. (Id.). Similarly, Mr. Carbone has limited and infrequent, if any, contacts with California. Although Carbone may have traveled to California on occasion, he does
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
not and has not at any material time resided, operated a business, owned property or derived revenue from acts in California. (Ex. A,
r 2-3). The Ninth Circuit has
held that business and vacation trips to a forum - even averaging three weeks per year - do not give rise to general jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1526-27 (9th Cir. 1985) (abrogated on other grounds). Moreover, "it is not the quantity, but rather the 'nature and quality' of [a] defendant's activities which determine whether extension of jurisdiction offends due process." Thomas P. Gonzalez Corp., v. Consejo National De Production De Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 1980). In sum, there simply is no basis for the Court to assert general personal jurisdiction over either Defendant. The only possible basis for asserting general
-11 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Exhibit B Page 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
jurisdiction over the Defendants would be the vague allegation in the Complaint made on "information and belief' that the Defendants "obtain confidential information about the Bachelor Series by contacting and soliciting information" from persons who currently maintain confidentiality obligations with the Plaintiffs. (Complaint at 13-14). Even if Plaintiffs could possibly support this allegation, the allegation could not possibly establish Defendants' "continuous and systematic contacts" with the State of California sufficient to establish this Court's general jurisdiction over them.
C. There is No Basis For Specific Jurisdiction
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Neither Defendant in this case has engaged in any activity that satisfies the requirements for specific jurisdiction. A court may assert specific jurisdiction over a defendant only if it finds that: (1) the defendant performed an act or consummated a transaction within the forum, purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum and invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; and (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs, and if either of these prongs is not satisfied, personal jurisdiction is not established. Id. at 802. If, however, the plaintiff
Exhibit B Page 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
establishes purposeful availment and a connection between its claims and the defendant's forum-related activities, then the defendant must demonstrate that the third prong, reasonableness, has not been satisfied. Id.
i.
Plaintiffs Cannot Meet Their Burden of Establishing Purposeful Availment or a Nexus Between Any Defendant's Alleged Conduct and any Purported Injury in California
The purposeful availment prong of the specific jurisdiction test has been further subdivided into two distinct questions: whether the Defendants either (1) "purposely availed" themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California, or (2) "purposely directed" their activities towards California. See
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 805. The analysis employed for intentional torts and similar claims is a "purposeful direction" test derived from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). See Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002); Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802; Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et LAntisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en bane). This analysis asks whether the defendant engaged in "actions outside the forum state that are directed at the forum," including by examining where the "effects" of the defendant's actions are felt. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803; Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1206. Specifically, the Supreme Court's so-called "Calder test" for purposeful direction imposes three requirements: "the defendant allegedly [must] have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing
Exhibit B Page 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state." Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1206 (internal quotations omitted). Neither the mere foreseeability of effects in the forum state nor the mere causing of an effect in the forum state is sufficient to give rise to specific jurisdiction. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). Rather, "the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis ... is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S. Ct. 559, 567 (1980). Moreover, it is not enough that plaintiff may feel effects in the forum state; instead, the defendant must have intentionally directed its activity to the forum state. Cas. Assurance Risk Ins. Brokerage Co. v. Dillon, 976 F.2d 596, 601 (9th Cir. 1992); see Sibley v. Super. Ct, 16 Ca1.3d 442, 446-447, 128 Cal.Rptr. 34 (1976) (If a nonresident defendant operates entirely outside California, the mere fact that its acts "cause an effect" within the state, or even that such effect was "foreseeable," is not enough by itself to support local personal jurisdiction). Accordingly, asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state (among many other states) is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test. See id.; IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 25961 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262, 271
Exhibit B Page 31
(2002). The plaintiff must also point to facts which demonstrate that the defendant
2
expressly aimed its allegedly tortious conduct at the forum. See Bancroft &
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Masters, 223 F.3d at 1087; Pavlovich, 29 Cal. 4th at 271. This, the Plaintiffs cannot do. Defendants' lack of even minimal contacts with the State of California and this judicial forum could not be clearer. As noted earlier, with respect to Mr. Carbone, Plaintiffs do not plead a single fact suggesting Mr. Carbone possesses contacts with the State of California. Mr. Carbone is a resident and a citizen of the state of Texas, and a member/officer of Reality Steve. (See Ex. A,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Tv 2, 5). The
only actions by Mr. Carbone that form the basis of Plaintiffs' claims, albeit denied by Defendants, are actions engaged in by Mr. Carbone in his official capacity as a member/officer of Reality Steve. This alleged conduct, standing alone, does not support the exercise of specific jurisdiction. For jurisdictional purposes, the acts of corporate officers and directors in their official capacities are the acts of the corporation exclusively and are, thus, not material for purposes of establishing minimum contacts as to the individuals. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984); Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 521 (9th Cir. 1989). This doctrine, known as the fiduciary shield doctrine, provides that a person's mere association with a corporation that causes injury in the forum state is insufficient by itself to permit the forum to assert jurisdiction
Exhibit B Page 32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
over the person. Id. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations of tortuous conduct. Nevertheless, all of Mr. Carbone's actions relating to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' complaint were undertaken solely in Mr. Carbone's capacity as a member/officer of Reality Steve. (Ex. A,
11 6). Plaintiffs have not, and could not,
allege that Reality Steve is Mr. Carbone's alter ego. In short, Mr. Carbone does not have sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify this Court's exercise of
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
personal jurisdiction over him, and his role as a member/officer of Reality Steve does not change that result. With respect to Reality Steve, any claim of minimum contacts is similarly unavailing. Reality Steve has no employees, telephones, branch offices, bank accounts, real property, personal property or advertising interests in California. (Ex. A, J 9-11). It is not authorized to, nor does it, conduct business in California.
(Id. at 9). It possesses no local agent for service of process. (Id.). It is not
involved (nor has it ever been involved) in any litigation in California other than
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
this case, nor has it ever been subjected to jurisdiction in California. (Id. at If 13). In short, there is no conceivable basis to assert that Reality Steve has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California or this forum. In fact, the only tie between Plaintiffs' allegations and California is the fact that Plaintiffs do business in the state. But, Plaintiffs film their shows at locations all over the world, and they operate and distribute their television shows (including
Exhibit B Page 33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the Bachelor Series) nationwide. Thus, it cannot be said that Reality Steve's decisions were directed to Plaintiffs' operations in California. Furthermore, the mere allegation that Reality Steve's website is accessible from California is insufficient to create personal jurisdiction over Reality Steve as a matter of law. In fact, because Reality Steve never marketed its website in California or specifically sought to attract residents of California to that website (see Ex. A, 1111), neither general nor specific jurisdiction over Reality Steve exists in this Court. See Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997) ("While there is no question that anyone, anywhere could access [the defendant's] home page and thereby learn about the services offered, we cannot see how from that fact alone it can be inferred that [the defendant] deliberately directed its merchandising efforts toward [the forum state]."); Life Alert Emergency
Response, Inc. v. Lifealert Security, Inc., 2008 WL 5412431, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("The mere maintenance of an interactive website, without consummated
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
commercial activity, is not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over [a] Defendant"). To rule otherwise would violate all notions of fair play by requiring a foreign company that has never set foot in California to defend a lawsuit regarding a website that was never intended for viewing in California or marketed in this State. Indeed, to subject Defendants to jurisdiction in California would obliterate
Exhibit B Page 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
personal jurisdiction analysis as we know it in American jurisprudence and subject
every citizen with intemet access to possible litigation in all fitly states. It is clear from the foregoing that Defendants have not engaged in any conduct that could possibly have caused them to anticipate being haled into court in California. Plaintiffs cannot overcome this obvious defect by its conclusory allegations of tortious conduct supposedly directed towards California. See Wenz v. Memery Crystal (10th Cir. 1995) 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (for purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court may not assume the truth of mere conclusory allegations). The Exercise of Jurisdiction Would Be Unreasonable
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Even if the Plaintiffs could carry their burden under Ninth Circuit law, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants would be unreasonable and "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S.
at 316 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
In determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction is "reasonable," the Ninth

20 21 22 23 24
Circuit considers seven factors: 1. the extent of the defendants' purposeful injection into the forum state's affairs; 2. the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum;
the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant's
25
3.
26 27 28
state; 4. 5. the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
Exhibit B Pa2e 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
6. 7.
the importance of the forum to the plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief; and the existence of an alternative forum.
Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1114. Here, a balancing of the listed factors demonstrates that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants would not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. As discussed, neither Defendant has any contacts with California and has not ever "purposefully interjected" itself into California's affairs. Both Defendants are residents of the State of Texas, and it would be unduly burdensome and oppressive to force the Defendants to incur the time and expense to travel to a forum that is thousands of miles away to defend itself in California against Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations. Where, as here, the defendants have "done little to reach out to the forum state," the burden of defending themselves in a foreign state militates against exercising jurisdiction.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. British-American Ins. Co. Ltd., 828 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Marina Salina Cruz, 649 F.2d 1266, 1272 (9th Cir. 1981)). Indeed, "the law of personal jurisdiction is asymmetrical and is primarily concerned with the defendant's burden." Terracom v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 561 (9th Cir. 1995). As noted, the Defendants have done little to reach out to California.
Exhibit B Page 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
The same is true of the next five factors. The exercise of jurisdiction in the State of California would create a great burden on Reality Steve and Mr. Carbone, who are both residents of the State of Texas without any presence in the State of California. (Ex. A, 14). The State of California has no interest in adjudicating this case, as it is a dispute regarding the rights of foreign business entities and an individual resident of a foreign state. Further, no efficiency is achieved for the judicial system or the parties because none of the alleged acts occurred in, or were directed towards, the State of California. Finally, Texas is an available alternative forum. Given these circumstances, it would be unreasonable as a matter of law to
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
litigate this case in California. This is particularly true given that Plaintiffs have no evidence to establish jurisdiction in California over the Defendants, and the allegations against the Defendants are made solely on information and belief. CONCLUSION
Compelling Reality Steve and Mr. Carbone to defend this lawsuit in this
forum has already and would continue to constitute an unreasonable burden upon them, and would manifestly violate due process norms of fair play and substantial justice. Given the utter non-existence of any minimum contacts by either Reality Steve or Mr. Carbone to California, combined with the cost, inconvenience and disruption that Reality Steve and Mr. Carbone would be forced to endure to defend a suit in California, the conclusion is inescapable: California lacks the authority to
Exhibit B Page 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
exercise personal jurisdiction over Reality Steve and Mr. Carbone and this case
should properly be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over them. WHEREFORE, Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC respectfully request that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction be granted and they be dismissed from this case.
DATED: January
ti
2012 BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC
By:
ir
D. Bradley Kizzia r.ed. Vice pending) Attorneys for Defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC
DATED: January "2-0, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY
By:
AIN/
s0
'
Gregg w
Attorneys for Defendants Ste and Reality Steve, LLC
n Carbone
Exhibit B Page 38
EXHIBIT A
_ Exhibit B Page 39
2 3 4 5
Gregg A. Farley, SBN 115593 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY 11755 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1845 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 445-4024 Facsimile: (310) 445-4109 gfarley@farleyfirm.corn D. Bradley Kizzia (Pro Hac Vice pending) BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 Dallas, Texas 75225 Telephone: (469) 893-9940 Facsimile: (214) 613-3330 brad@brownfoxlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN CARB ONE and REALITY STEVE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
) Case No.: CV11-10118-GIIK (Ex) ) a) ) DECLARATION OF STEPFIEN ) CARBONE IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiffs, ) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK ) OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION vs. ) STEPHEN CARBONE, an individual, ) and REALITY STEVE, LLC, a Texas ) Date: March 12, 2012 limited liability corporation, ) Time: 9:30 a.m. ) Courtroom: 650 Defendants. NZK PRODUCTIONS INC., a California corporation, and HORIZON ALTERNATIVE TELEVISION INC., Delaware corporation,
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CARBONE
Exhibit B PaQe 40
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CARBONE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
I, Stephen Carbone, declare and state: 1. I am more than eighteen (18) years of age and am fully competent to
make this Declaration. I am competent to testify in Court, and I have never been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. All of the statements contained herein are based upon my personal knowledge and are true and correct. 2. I am a resident of the State of Texas, and I live and work in Texas. I
do not reside in California, and I do not own or lease property in California. 3. I do not have a contractual relationship with any California residents. I
do not do business in California or with any residents of California. I do not have a bank account in California, and I do not pay any taxes in California. 4. 5. I was served with the Summons in this case in Texas. I am a member of Reality Steve, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company incorporated and validly existing under the laws of the State of Texas. I
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
currently control ninety-five percent (95%) of the membership units in Reality Steve. 6. At all times material to the conduct alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, I
was acting in my capacity as a member of Reality Steve, LLC. I was not acting in my individual capacity.
-2DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CARBONE
Exhibit B Paae 41
7.
2 3
Reality Steve operates a passive entertainment website from Texas. Yea! Network, LLC currently holds a five percent (5%) membership
8.
interest in Reality Steve. Yea! Network does not exercise any control over the
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
content or operation of the website, www.realitysteve.com . 9. Reality Steve has never transacted business in California. It has no
offices or employees in California, is not registered to do business in California, and it does not have an agent for service of process in California. 10. Reality Steve does not own or lease property in California, does not
maintain any bank accounts in California, does not pay any taxes in California, and has never had telephone listings in California. 11. Reality Steve does not and has not conducted any marketing or placed
any advertisements in California. 12. Texas. 13. Reality Steve has never been subject to jurisdiction in California, and Reality Steve, LLC was served with the Summons in this case in
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
has never been involved in any litigation in California prior to this case. 14. It would be very burdensome upon me and Reality Steve to have to
litigate this case in California.
-3DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CARBONE
Exhibit B Page 42
1
2 3 4
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the above facts are true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed this 19 11) day of January, 2012 in Dallas, Texas.
5
6 7
St hen C rbone
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4DECLARATION OF STEPHEN CARBONE
Exhibit B Page 43
EXHIBIT C TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT C TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
/25/12
Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1 Filed 01/25/12 Page 44 of 61 Page ID #:145 realitysteve.com
liyout.,11w.
FUJI ul,
you
s;:ty
11
ULJCSI I L II ItILLI lo
you ii you yuL
illy
01 I ILA L.JeLidUJC
"love is more important. What's better than love?" Remember that? Then Luke told you that he would not propose to you because he feels like that's mming too quickly. And since then, he's given you no other indication to make you think his stance has changed on that. Then you tell big Hickl that you would be honored if he presented you with a ring. So explain to me how someone who now says she wants a ring would even take a chance on a guy who told her straight to her face he wouldn't propose? Which is why I hate this show and will never write about it again. Until next season. -Final deliberation room. I'm glad Meredith got her hair done so nicely for her possible engagement. The way I look at it, she hopped in the shower, washed her hair, came out of the shower, didn't dry it, parted it in the middle, pulled it back, added a fake bun, and went on over to the mansion. Probably took a good five minutes. Tops. -Commercial. Tell me they didn't show NY Giants quarterback Jessie Palmer dropping back to pass, pretending he was going to throw a football, but really throwing 25 roses. Please tell me I didn't just see that. I cannot wait until the "Bachelor" starts in April. I am gonna absolutely bury this guy. And I'm just some no-name behind a computer in California. How about this guy's teammates? Football is the macho sport of all macho sports. He's gonna get crucified in that locker room for spending his offseason handing out roses. What's a pro football player doing anyway going on a TV show looking for some tail? Especially the backup quarterback to the Giants. I feel bad for you Jessie. First you never win a big game at Florida, then you get Jim Fassel fired this last season by quarterbacking the team's last 5 losses, and now this. Good luck. You'll need it. -Time for the moment we've all been waiting for. Matt's up first. Unlike Trista, Meredith is a woman of very few words. And when she immediately started in with all the compliments, you knew there was a "but" coming. And there was. After she said "but", she fake cried, gathered herself and said, "but I feel more strongly with someone else and that's it. I've been sick,...absolutely sick about this...." So am I. Regurgitating garlic breadsticks is not something I expected to do tonight. But it's happening. -Meredith: "Can I walk you out?" I guess Matt cared about her too much to say "no", but man was I hoping he would. He took it well though. A hell of a lot better than I would've. Especially if she led me on like that. I would've been dropping f-bombs, cursing myself all the way back to the limo, etc. I mean, we're talking a meltdown even bigger than Ryan R.'s. I know he's hurt, and I know he cares for her, but enough of the kissing between these two. She didn't pick you. She wants a kiss? Bulls**t. Kiss your new boyfriend. Don't kiss me. Yes, I'm bitter right now. Why do I feel like she just dumped me? -Matt in the limo: "This is insane... .This is crazy.... My heart is with someone who doesn't want me Am I a fool?....To do what I've done and to be what I've been?" Matt, you're a good guy, and I hate to break it to you any other way, but, you got hosed. All the built up anger inside, all the venom, all the hatred, just let it go. Go back home to your swing and just swing like you've never swung before. Go high, go fast, go slow, but just go home and get as far away from these two love puppies as possible. -Chris' turn to greet Ian as he gets out of the limo. Wouldn't it be great if he just ruined it right there? "Dude, she already dumped Matt. You're in." Guys look out for each other. Chris not breaking the news to Ian, although probably going against game show rules, really would've solidified him as a member of the male species. Now I'm not so sure. -Meredith's not much of a talker once again and basically told him within the first three sentences that he was the guy she wanted to grow old and have children with. .YippppeeeeelIIII It's over. Can we go now? Oh yeah, surprise surprise, he ended up proposing. I think He put the ring on her finger, but he did it while he was standing and
all hp said was "Will vnii?" And she blurted old. "YeslIll Ye.sIIIII" So
.alitysteve.com/bachelorette2/bachelorette2index.html
I 011eSS
that was
7/
Exhibit C Page 44
EXHIBIT D TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT D TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
/25/12
Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1 Filed 01/25/12 Page 46 of 61 Page ID #:147 realitysteve.com
didn't just say that, did she? For pete's sake, all he wanted to do was get closer to you. Her philosophy on Chad V.'s ability to walk across a log seemed juuuuuuuust a little too deep. Call me crazy. But hey, whatever floats her boat. I understand what she meant, but all the guy did was walk across a log. No need to go all "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" on him. -I actually read a whole chapter of that book on Saturday, and I think I may have pulled out a good handful of hair. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT GUY RAMBLING ABOUT? The one chapter I read was entitled, "Scoring Points with the Opposite Sex." Or, as I would've titled it, "P****whipped Things You Can do to Maybe Get in her Pants". I figured, "Hey, I gotta check this out. Maybe I'm doing something wrong." He has a list of 101 things a man can do to score points with a woman. And these aren't major things, but just little things to do here and there to have a better chance of having sex more than once a week. Some of these I completely agreed with, "Tell her 'I love you' at least a couple times per day", "Take pictures of her on special occasions", "Make a point of cuddling or being affectionate sometimes without being sexual" (Ok, let's not push it here, Dr. Gray), "Display affection in public", and my favorite "Create occasions when you can both dress up." I agree with all of those. Then I got to some that I completely shook my head at
"If she washed your socks, turn your socks right side out so she doesn't have to" (WHAT?!!! That scores you points?) "Offer to build a fire in the wintertime" (Sure. We here in California are always freezing our asses off in the wintertime. I'll get right on that). "Plan a date several days in advance, rather than waiting for Friday night and asking her what she wants to do" (Damn. You mean no more surprise bags of Burger King on the weekends?) "Wash before having sex or put on a cologne if she likes that" (Or just wash each other during sex. Nothing wrong with that either). "Be understanding when she is late or decides to change her outfit" (Is that possible? I think I just bit my tongue off). "Take her side when she is upset with someone" (What if that someone is me? I want to be on my side). And a couple of the more humorous things this clown wrote, "When listening to her, reassure her that you are interested by making little noises like ah ha, uh huh, oh, mmhuh, and hmmmm" (Guys do that all the time. Doesn't mean we're paying attention though). And finally, "Treat her in ways you did at the beginning of the relationship" (Pardon me, Dr. Gray, if guys did that, nobody would ever break up because every relationship would be perfect). I could literally write a 100 page book, just on that chapter alone. But I won't. -Back to the show. So in the car ride home from Group date #1, she asks the guys their age, and Vic has to admit he's 25. Erin: "I usually date guys 2 to 3 years older than me." Couple things. Ummm, Vic's gone. Maybe not this week, but he's not lasting. And secondly, Erica now must figure out how he's going to add about 6 years to his age in a matter of a couple weeks. I think Erica is in trouble now. Maybe Olive can set him up with Jailbait. He seems to like the little young ones who've been on T.V. before. -Time for Wade's solo date at an empty Hollywood Bowl. Wade is in a tux. The coat is white with the black bow tie. I think I may have mentioned this before, but I did the whole white coat with the black bow tie thing at my senior prom. Now, I can't even bring myself to look at that thing it was so hideous. White tuxedo coats should be outlawed in all 50 states. I don't care who's wearing them, they're ugly. -Erin says the setting similar to her first date with Knob that was on the beach. Very romantic and peaceful. Except for one major thing. The guy that she's with now isn't a complete and utter baffoon who can't put two sentences together. If I had to pick a winner now, I'd go with Wade the neck. He seems like a decent guy. But apparently, he "lacks mystery." The Oil apparently doesn't like guys that open up, are honest, and tell you exactly what they feel. She wants mystery and intrigue. Goodbye Wade.
aalitysteve.com/flom2/flom2.7.28.03.html
Exhibit D
4/
Page 45
EXHIBIT E TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT E TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
/25/12
realitysteve.com Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1 Filed 01/25/12 Page 48 of 61 Page ID #:149
ut
l et
111y1
tiet LWU L.JciLeJ WILI1 CI. INIUK 1 -1/-1.J LU 1CcIVe. 111C pcm UI yuit ty I 1U1 Ile CVU1 y
night with nuts the size of grapefruits had to be the most excruciating pain man has ever had to deal with in history. Nick Lachey might be my new hero. -2nd commercial. We have a Carol Walsh sighting. Mrs. Walsh, Brandon and Brenda Walsh's mother from "B,H. 90210" is now doing TJ Maxx commercials. Having lived out here in California my whole life, I don't know if everyone is familiar with what TJ Maxx is. Well, it's a horses*** clothing store for women. Consider yourself not hip if you have purchased anything from TJ Maxx in the last 10 years. Do you go to Target to get your lingerie too? What Mrs. Walsh is doing in a TJ Maxx commercial is beyond me, but dammit, it was still good to see her again. How are her and the Mister doing? Didn't they get divorced towards the end of the show? I think she left him for David Silver. Or Munce. Or Noah Hunter. -Rose ceremony time . -Kristy....apparently he's going to ask all of them, "Will you please accept this rose?" Please? He's now begging for them to accept? This is not good. -Anne Catherine....because he likes showing off his lame French accent, he pronounces "Catherine" like some guy who should be wearing a beret. Yucko, -Mandy. .considering there's twoNandy's meathead, you might want to be a little more specific next time. -Celeste...Tiki Barber must've helped him with this pick. Ok, so we have one sister moving on. I'm guessing she'll also be the last. -Jesse D....wow, what a wreck. She could be the next Liz. -Mandy Jaye....ah, I see. Just like I suspected. He likes women with the name "Mandy". -Jenny S the "spy" who hasn't been showing speaking with anybody yet.
-Amber....Calista Flockhart looking girl. Not facially, but someone might want to throw this chick a steak. -Tara... from Norman. Oklahoma. Nothing good usually ever comes out of Norman, Oklahoma except for their football team. And Tara. Potential top 5'er. -Jean Marie... thick, thick accent. Had a dress the color of a skunk. -Jessica B .why he waited so long to give this hottie a rose, who knows?
-Julie... .the NFL cheerleader. Very excited. Overly excited. Has that fake cheerleader grin going. -Suzie....We know absolutely nothing about her other than her occupation is prosthetic technician. Kinda looks like she might have gone to the prosthetic grill for herself too. Just an observation. -"Ladies, this is the final rose of the night." That's what you think, Chris. Hey, they were right for once. This may be the most dramatic Rose Ceremony yet. I thought it was cuz' Jesse's a doofus. -Katie..., you knew the way she reacted, and how happy she was, then looking at his face that this was not the chick he wanted. He brings Chris outside, says he meant to
sav "Karen" the former Ms Rhode Island Reality Pane.ant woman hut said "Katie"
?.alitysteve.com/bachelor5/bachelor5.4.7.html
Exhibit E
Page 46
7/
EXHIBIT F TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT F TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
/25/12
realitysteve.com Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1 Filed 01/25/12 Page 50 of 61 Page ID #:151
awaits them, and Byron will drive them to dinner, sort of. I'm just curious as to what the hell part of Newport Beach they were in on a sunny afternoon, and there wasn't one single car on the road. This is supposed to be believable? Uhhhh, they're in Southern California. That is Newport Beach. Right on the water. I'm guessing there's going to be one or 10,000 SUV's and Mercedes' with the sunroofs open going 90 mph while talking on the phone and honking at each other. That must've been some traffic scene to block off a whole major street in Newport so these two could coast down PCH. That's Pacific Coast Highway for those of you unfortunate enough to live outside the Southern California area. God bless your souls. -So as Byron's going 100 mph down the street with traffic blocked off just for his date, they start approaching the water, yet he ain't slowing down. I thought this was turning into an episode of "Fear Factor" before our eyes. Anyway, the car plunges into the water, getting her nice dress and his nice suit all wet. At this point, I'm scratching my head. Until Byron reveals what the hell is now going on: He's driving a transformer. This thing they're in is apparently a car/boat. So he turns on the engines, and they boat over to where they're supposedly having dinner. Wait a second. Huh? What in the hell just happened? There's actually such a thing as a car/boat? I thought those were just toys and things that five year olds wish for? When I grow up, I want a really, really, really fast car that can go 200 miles an hour, then when it hits the water, it turns into a boat!" There, there Johnnie. When you grow up, you can get anything you want. -I'm still completely baffled. There is such a thing now where a car can turn itself into a boat. You can just drive your car off a bridge, land in the water, then boat on over to your next destination. Shouldn't this have been like the first thing on the news the llecond it came out? How have I never heard of this before? Having lived in Southern California most of my life, I feel like I have some sort of knowledge as to the cool, hip, trendy things on the market. If you would've told me there was such a thing, I might have laughed in your face. And that's before I punched you in the stomach and told you Eto shut the hell up.
-Commercial. Speaking of the news. It's October 20th. I'm living in Los Angeles. It is now officially that time of year. The time of year in Southern California where the 1/2 inch of rain we're getting is the top story on every 10:00 news channel out there. Out here, they call it "Storm Watch', or "Storm Track", or "God We're All Gonna Die Because Our . First Drop of Rain Just Touched the Pavement." Sickening. I guess I have about two more months of this. Grown people, in rubber suits, standing outside in the rain telling the listening audience that, well, it's raining. And be careful. Don't drive too fast. Thanks for that. You know, tomorrow morning I was actually thinking of seeing how fast I can go in and out of lanes while on two wheels and then throwing it into neutral during the downpour. Newscasters are idiots. from the car/boat. No, -So Byron and Tanya show up to dinner and they're all wet not from anything else. Yet. Anyway, I'm totally amazed at watching these two discuss absolutely nothing important over dinner and all the while, Tanya's hair never got any of the frizzies that usually accompany your hair getting wet and not being able to take care of it. So either one of two things happened here: She either went with the flow and didn't complain, or she through a fit because Byron put her through that and now she had to go on a date and look like Medusa, so the producers accommodated her and let makeup take care of her for a good two hours. Maybe that'll be on the uncut DVD. -Byron asks Tanya if she has a type. Tanya: "A type? No. I'm just looking for a best friend. Is that what you're looking for?" Byron: "Yeah." These two's conversations are mind blowing. Although it would've been really funny if Byron responded with, "Actually, you know, I'm just kinda lookin' to break Guiney's record of how many girls I can lay throughout this whole process. It won't be easy to do, but hopefully through a couple drinks and couple toys I brought along with me, maybe it can happen." Maybe that's on the uncut DVD as well. Exhibit F
aalitysteve.com/bachelor6/bachelor6.10.20.html
Page 47
2/
EXHIBIT G TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT G TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
/25/12
Domain Registration, Website Design and Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1Business Web Hosting at Regist... 52 of 61 Page ID #:153 Filed 01/25/12 Page
register
Ekait v Ike an itiipact.
Speak to a web expert. Call us toll free at 1.866..507.1951
Customer Support
Log In
stamq&i.
VVhois Resulls
Print-friendly version
itiViarieftle#
ver
Do another WHOIS lookup
DOMAIN NAME ARE HERE.

ADULT ABOUT IT
Domain Name Creation Date Registration Date Expiry Date
realitysteve.com 2003-09-01 2003-09-01 2014-09-01
Start N
Organisation Name.. Stephen Carbone Organisation Address. 3614 Fans Dr. apt. 2 Organisation Address. Organisation Address. Los angeles Organisation Address. 90034 Organisation Address. CA Organisation Address. UNITED STATES Admin Name Admin Address Admin Address ..... Admin Address Admin Address Admin Address Admin Address Admin Email Admin Phone Admin Fax Tech Name Tech Address Tech Address Tech Address Tech Address Tech Address Tech Address Tech Email Tech Phone Tech Fax Name Server Name Server yns1.yahoo.com yns2.yahoo.com Sunnyvale 94089 CA UNITED STATES domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM *1.4089162124 YahooDomains TechContact 701 First Ave. los angeles 90034 CA UNITED STATES es20dx@aol.com +1.3108415975 Stephen Carbone 3614 Faris Dr. apt. 2
Great Partner Offers

DATA BACKUP LOGIN Protect assets from personal liability
Exhibit G
/ww.register.com/whois.romx
Page 48
1/
/25/12
Domain Registration, Website Design and Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1Business Web Hosting at Regist... 53 of 61 Page ID #:154 Filed 01/25/12 Page
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM , .NET, .EDU domains and Registrars.
Print-friendly version Do another WHOIS lookup
WEBSITE
soNAL
BUILT FOR FREE! -
Ni"14 Suppopi
Partner Offers
About Us I Become an Affiliate I Advertising with Register l Become a Reseller
1995 -2012 by Register.com . Please read our Disclaimer, Privacy Notice, Services Agreement, Dispute Policy, and DMCA Notice. Callus tolltree at 1.866.507.1951; Outside the US please all 1.902.749.5953
Exhibit G
tww.register.com/whois.rcmx
Page 49
2/
EXHIBIT H TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT H TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
ONLY 1 2 9
FLY FROM
SFO AND LAX + PHILADELPHIA

GRAB A SEAT
america
FULL SEASONS RECAPS

RELIVE THE REALITY TV PAST
The Bachelor The Bachelorette Bachelor Pad Big Brother Jersey Shore Survivor The Amazing Race Keeping up with the Karciashians Real 'World/Road Rules
search for shows, season, or episodes
search*
@copyright 2011 RealitySteve.com - All rights reserved I Privacy Policy
Exhibit H Page 50
Network and Find Jobs on Facebook with 8ek11011.M. front

1, Producing Saks... Typically oversees a geogr... Citi Pasadena, CA Personal Banker... Citibank delivers a wide a... Citi Brentwood, CA
monster
Sat Now
IntereEt Eszed Ad Director. Park... Guitar Center is the world... Guitar Center Los Angeles, CA
Senior Tax Asso... Business Title: Senior Tax... KPMG LIP Los Angeles, CA
FULL SEASONS RECAPS

RELIVE THE REALITY TV PAST
The Bachelor The Bachelorette Bachelor Pad Big Brother Jersey Shore Survivor The Amazing Race Keeping up with the Kardashians Real World/Road Rules
search for shows, season, or episodes

copyright 2011 F.:ealitySteii , COM
-
search>>
All rights reserved I Privacy Foliy
Eltike
5k
f Suggest
f Activity
Twitter
You Tube
Select Language
__. ers-1 by <ss
Exhibit H Page 51
EXHIBIT I TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
EXHIBIT I TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS
Applicable Law: This Agreement and all matters or issues collateral thereto shall J. be governed by the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts executed and performed entirely therein (regardless of the actual place(s) of performance).
Initial Here
Page 25 of 27 Bachelor 16 Participant Agreement (execution)
Exhibit I Page 52
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

DATED: _ DATED:
NZK PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Di 61 Let Lure
Print Name:
By:
Address: Its:
36W W. Olive Avenue, Suite 700 Burbank, California 91505 Telephone: (818) 972-0292 Fax Number:(818) 977-0522
Telephone: Social Security Number: Other Names and Aliases (if applicable):
Initial Here
Page 26 of 27 Bachelor 16 Participant Agreement (execution)
Exhibit I Page 53
EXHIBIT "A" "THE BACHELOR"

EMERGENCY MEDICAL RELEASE Return Completed Form To: NZK Productions, Inc. 3601 West Olive Ave., Suite 700 Burbank, CA 91505 Tel: 818-972-0292 Fax: 818-977-0522
Initial Here
Page 27 of 27
Bachelor 16 Participant Agreement (execution)
Exhibit I Page 54
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My 4 business address is 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Twenty-Third Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. 5 On January 25, 2012, I served a true copy of the foregoing document 6 described as DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DEFRANCIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFSEX PARTE APPLICATION (1) TO CONTINUE 7 HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTSMOTION TO DISMISS BY 60 DAYS TO PERMIT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, AND (2) FOR AN ORDER 8 PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO CONDUCT SUCH DISCOVERY on the interested parties in this action as follows: 9 D. Bradley Kizzia, Esq. Gregg A. Farley, Esq. Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson PLLC Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley 10 8226 Douglas Avenue, Suite 411 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1845 Dallas, TX 75225 Los Angeles, CA 90025 11 Fax: 214-613-3330 Fax: 310-445-4109 brad@brownfoxlaw.com gfarley@farleyfirm.com 12 Attorneys for defendants Stephen Attorneys for defendants Stephen Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC Carbone and Reality Steve, LLC 13 3 14 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed a copy of the document(s) to the 15 # persons at the fax numbers listed in the Service List. The telephone number of the 16 sending facsimile machine was (310) 712-6199. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. 17 # BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of document(s) to be sent from e-mail address adefrancis@kelleydrye.com to the 18 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a 19 reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 # FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 21 United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the 22 service was made. 23 24 25 26 27 28
298108.1.doc
Executed on January 25, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Andrew W. DeFrancis Andrew W. DeFrancis
CV11-10118 GHK (Ex) DECL. OF ANDREW W. DEFRANCIS ISO PLAINTIFFS PARTE APPLICATION (1) TO CONTINUE EX HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (2) FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO CONDUCT SUCH DISCOVERY: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

"Bachelor" Producers Vs "Reality Steve" Lawsuit: Exhibits For Declaration of Andrew W. DeFrancis - Ex Parte Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Bachelor" Producers Vs "Reality Steve" Lawsuit: Exhibits For Declaration of Andrew W. DeFrancis - Ex Parte Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:117

EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS

EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW W. DeFRANCIS

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 17 of 61 Page ID #:118

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:43

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 18 of 61 Page ID #:119

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:44

-2DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 19 of 61 Page ID #:120

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:45

2012 LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY

-3DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 20 of 61 Page ID #:121

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:46

MEET AND CONFER COMPLIANCE

-4DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 21 of 61 Page ID #:122

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:47

-5DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 22 of 61 Page ID #:123

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:48

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

-6DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 23 of 61 Page ID #:124

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:49

ij 2). Mr. Carbone lives and works in Texas, and

5). Stephen Carbone holds ninety-five

-7DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 24 of 61 Page ID #:125

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:50

4, 12). The only specific contacts, communications, and/or

correspondence alleged by Plaintiffs (see Complaint,

TT 13-18) originated in Texas

-8DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 25 of 61 Page ID #:126

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:51

-9DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 26 of 61 Page ID #:127

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:52

There is No Bases For General Jurisdiction Over Either Defendant

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 27 of 61 Page ID #:128

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:53

systematic" contacts required to establish general jurisdiction. For example,

r 2-3). The Ninth Circuit has

-11 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1

Filed 01/25/12 Page 28 of 61 Page ID #:129

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 12 Filed 01/20/12 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:54

-12DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 2:11-cv-10118-GHK-E Document 19-1