Aurora Corp. v. Michlin Prosperity Co.

• Decision Date: 29 September 2015
• Docket Number: CV 13-03516 RSWL (JCx)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: AURORA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICHLIN PROSPERITY CO., Ltd., a Taiwanese corporation; DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants.

AURORA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICHLIN PROSPERITY CO., Ltd., a Taiwanesecorporation; DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants.

CV 13-03516 RSWL (JCx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 29, 2015

ORDER re: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT, MICHILIN PROSPERITY CO., LTD., FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)] [39]

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Order Dismissing Action as Against Defendant Michilin Prosperity Co., Ltd., for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [39], Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [42], and Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice [44-1]. The Court, having considered all arguments presented, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismisspursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") 12(b)(2) [39]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [42]. The Court DENIES Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice [44-1]. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request, in the alternative, to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Aurora Corporation of America ("Plaintiff") is a California corporation authorized to do business with the State of California. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant Michilin Prosperity Co., Ltd., ("Defendant") is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei, Taiwan. Compl. ¶2. At all relevant times, Defendant was the designer and manufacturer of the Aurora AS1000X 10CC Cross Cut Paper Shredder ("Shredder"). Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff is the distributor of the Shredder. Compl. ¶ 12. The Shredder was manufactured at Defendant's plant located in China. Compl. ¶ 13; See Compl., Ex. A, Affidavit of Frank Chang ("Chang Affidavit") ¶ 6. After the Shredder was manufactured, the Shredder was then shipped to Plaintiff in Torrance, California. Compl. ¶ 14; See Chang Aff. ¶ 6.

The present action arises out of a May 2008 incident involving a minor who was injured when she stuck her hand into the Shredder. Compl. ¶ 8. As a result of the incident, a lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia. Id. See Askue v. Aurora Corporation, et al., Civil Action File No. 1:10-cv-0948-JEC ("the Georgia action"). Plaintiff and Defendant were named defendants in the Georgia action. Mot., 2:11-12. Defendant was dismissed from the Georgia action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2). Mot., 2:12-13.

The present action is an indemnity action filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for amounts paid by Plaintiff to defend and settle the Georgia action. Mot., 2:4-9. On July 17, 2015, Defendant filed the instant motion, requesting the Court to dismiss this action against Defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Request for Judicial Notice. On August 04, 2015, Defendant filed its Request for Judicial Notice.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

1. Judicial Notice

A court may take judicial notice of "a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

2. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(2), a district court cannot proceed against a defendant over which it lacks personal jurisdiction, unless that defendant has waived the requirement. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702-03 (1982). In states where no applicable federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, that state's long-arm statute applies. See Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant requires the presence of two factors: (1) California's laws must provide a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction, and (2) the assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process. Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Kansas City, 800 F.2d 1474, 1477 (9th Cir. 1986). California's long arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by due process. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10; Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1320. "Because California's long-arm jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the same." Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, only a due process analysis is required here.

Due process requires that a defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditionalnotions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state that warrant the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). Depending on the nature and scope of the defendant's contacts with the forum, jurisdiction may be general or specific to a cause of action. Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 1991).

When a defendant's contacts with the forum state are "substantial" or "continuous and systematic," general jurisdiction may be exercised over that defendant for any cause of action, even if it is unrelated to the defendant's activities within the forum state. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801-02; Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). In cases where a defendant's contacts are insufficient to support an exercise of general jurisdiction, more limited specific jurisdiction may be found where a cause of action arises out of or is related to the defendant's activities in the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985); Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). "Specific jurisdiction may be exercised with a lesser showing of minimum contactsthan is required for the exercise of general jurisdiction." ACORN v. Household Int'l, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1164 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The Ninth Circuit uses a three-part test to determine whether there is specific jurisdiction over a defendant: (1) the defendant must purposefully avail herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or conduct; (2) the plaintiff's claim must arise out of, or result from, the defendant's forum-related contacts; and (3) the extension of jurisdiction must be 'reasonable.'" Adv. Skin & Hair, Inc. v. Bancroft, 858 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620-21 (9th Cir. 1991)).

As to the first prong, the Ninth Circuit generally uses a purposeful direction analysis when an action sounds in tort, whereas it uses a purposeful availment analysis when an action sounds in contract. Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 672-73, n.2 (9th Cir. 2012).

"When a district court acts on a defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss." Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1498. In order to make a prima facie showing, the plaintiff must produce admissible evidence, which, if believed, would be sufficient to establish the Court'spersonal jurisdiction. Enriquez v. Interstate Grp., LLC, No. 11-CV-05155 YGR, 2012 WL 3800801, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2012). Accordingly, a district court is to take uncontroverted allegations in the complaint as true. AT&T Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). However, "mere allegations of the complaint, when contradicted by affidavits, are [not] enough to confer personal jurisdiction of a nonresident defendant. In such a case, facts, not mere allegations, must be the touchstone." Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967). See also Chem Lab Prods., Inc. v. Stepanek, 554 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1977); Cummings v. W. Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1154 (D. Ariz. 2001). Parties may go beyond the pleadings and support their positions with discovery materials, affidavits, or declarations. Am. Inst. of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc. v. Soc'y of Permanent Cosmetic Prof's, No. CV 12-06887 GAF JCGX, 2013 WL 1685558, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013). "[C]onflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be resolved in [the plaintiff's] favor for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists." AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588. "At the same time, however, the plaintiff must submit admissible evidence in support of its prima facie case." Id.

B. Analysis

1. Plaintiff's Requests for Judicial Notice

a. Plaintiff's request that the Court judicially notice the Affidavit of Frank Chang

In Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [42], Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Chang Affidavit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence ("F.R.E.") 201(c)(2).

"There is a mistaken notion that taking judicial notice of court records ... means taking judicial notice of the existence of facts asserted in every document of a court file, including pleadings and affidavits. The concept of judicial notice requires that the matter which is the proper subject of judicial notice be a fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute. Facts in the judicial record that are subject to dispute, such as allegations in affidavits, declarations, and probation reports, are not the proper subjects of judicial notice even though they are in a court record." Rivera v. Hamlet, 2003 WL...