Riot Games, Inc. v. Suga PTE, Ltd.

• Docket Number: Case No. 2:22-cv-00429-SPG-KS
• Decision Date: 03 November 2022
• Citation: 638 F.Supp.3d 1102
• Parties: RIOT GAMES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. SUGA PTE, LTD., a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore, IMBA Technology Company Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Vietnam; IMBA Network LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co.; and Does through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

638 F.Supp.3d 1102

RIOT GAMES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. SUGA PTE, LTD., a companyincorporated under the laws of Singapore,IMBA Technology Company Limited, a companyincorporated under the laws of Vietnam;IMBA Network LLC, a Delaware LimitedLiability Co.;and Does through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00429-SPG-KS

United States District Court, C.D. California

Signed November 3, 2022

Marc Ellis Mayer, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Theresa B. Bowman, Pro Hac Vice, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

John D. Tran, Rosalind Thuy Ong, Rhema Law Group PC, Irvine, CA, for DefendantsIMBA Technology Company Limited, IMBA Network LLC.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION[ECF No. 27]

SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Suga PTE, Ltd.'s ("Suga") and IMBA Technology Co. Ltd.'s ("Imba Tech")(collectively, "Defendants")motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)("Motion").(ECF No. 27("Mot.")).This matter was originally set for hearing on October 19, 2022.Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court finds pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Central District of California Local Rule 7-15 that the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument.The Motion has been taken under submission.For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion as to Imba Tech and GRANTS the Motion as to Suga PTE.The Court also GRANTS Riot Games, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") request for jurisdictional discovery on its alter ego liability theory.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Factual Background

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.(ECF No. 1 ¶ 6(hereinafter "Compl.")).Plaintiff is in the business of producing, developing, publishing, distributing, and marketing a catalog of video game products, including "League of Legends"("LoL") and its spin-off title, "Teamfight Tactics."(Id.¶ 15).Plaintiff's LoL allows two five-player teams ("champions") to battle head-to-head across computer-generated battlefields.(Id.¶ 16).Players may choose among more than 150 different champions, each with a unique design, backstory, and playstyle.(Id.¶ 17).LoL is played by more than 100 million players every month and its champions have been featured on television, consumer products, clothing, action figures, and comic books.See(id.¶ 1).

DefendantSuga PTE, Ltd.("Suga") is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore.(Id.¶ 7).Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that among Suga's divisions or subsidiaries is Imba Technology Company, Limited("Imba Tech"), a mobile game development studio with its principal place of business at Ho Chi Min City, Vietnam.(Id.).Plaintiff has yet to determine whether Imba is a subsidiary company of Suga or a division of Suga.(Id.)

Imba Network, LLC("Imba Network") is a limited liability company registered under the laws of Delaware.(Id.¶ 8).Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Imba Network has a business address in Dover, Delaware, and that an individual named Do Tuan Minh serves as both "Head of Imba" and as director and/or member of Imba Network.(Id.).The complaint does not allege the residence of Imba Network's members, and Plaintiff has yet to determine whether Imba Network is a subsidiary or division of Imba Tech and Suga.See(id.).

The complaint alleges that Suga, Imba Tech, and Imba Network (collectively, "Defendants") have sought to leverage the popularity and goodwill of Plaintiff's LoL champions in their own games.(Id.¶ 2).Specifically, in 2020, Defendants released via the Google Play and Apple App Store its own LoL mobile game titled "I Am Hero-AFK Tactical Teamfight"(hereinafter, "I Am Hero").(Id.¶ 3).I Am Hero allows players to create a team, from a roster of 40 different characters, to deploy against another on a computer-generated battlefield.See(id.¶¶ 30, 33-35).I Am Hero features a roster of "heroes" that Plaintiff asserts Defendants deliberately designed to be substantially and confusingly similar to LoL's "champions."(Id.¶ 3).In particular, Plaintiff alleges that many, if not all, of the "heroes" are characters that are substantially similar to LoL's champions, including their character designs, names, abilities, and background stories.(Id.)

I Am Hero does not charge consumers for downloading the game; rather, it generates revenue by selling virtual currency which can be used to "unlock" new characters.(Id.¶ 22).These in-game purchases are advertised in U.S. dollars.(Id.¶ 13(b)).I Am Hero has earned at least $500,000 from these in-game purchases.See(id.¶ 2); (ECFNo. 33-1, Exhibit 1at 87).

B.Procedural History

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint.(Compl.).The complaint alleges a single claim for copyright infringement against the Defendants and seeks an injunction against Defendants, an accounting of all sales of products or services that infringe on Plaintiffs' copyright, and damages, among other relief.See(Id.¶¶ 41-49 and "Prayer for Relief").

On May 16, 2022, Defendants Suga and Imba Tech specially appeared and filed the instant Motion, which seeks dismissal of the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.(Mot.).In support of the Motion, Defendants Suga and Imba Tech also filed the declarations of Tuan Minh Do, who is the CEO of Imba Tech, and Ngoc Duy Truong, who is the CEO of Suga PTE.(ECFNos. 27-3("Truong Decl."), 27-4 ("Do Decl.")).Defendants Suga and Imba Tech argue that neither has purposefully established minimum contacts in California, or even in the United States, for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.(Mot.at 6); (TruongDecl., ¶ 4); (DoDecl. ¶ 5).

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion.(ECF No. 33("Opp")).Plaintiff argues that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Imba Tech under the federal long-arm statute, see(Opp.at 19-31), and over Suga and Imba Tech based on the theory of alter ego liability.See(id. at 27).In support of its Opposition, Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel, accompanied by numerous exhibits.(ECFNo. 33-1).Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the Court allow jurisdictional discovery if the Court finds personal jurisdiction over Suga and Imba Tech are lacking.See(Opp.at 27-28).

On June 27, 2022, Defendants filed their reply to the opposition.(ECF No. 36).¹Imba Network does not contest jurisdiction.See(Mot.at 6).

II.LEGAL STANDARD

"For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must have at least 'minimum contacts' with the relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction 'does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' "Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801(9th Cir.2004)(quotingInt'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95(1945)).Minimum contacts may be established via general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.General jurisdiction exists where the defendant's contacts with the forum state "are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state."Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796(2011)(quotingInt'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154)).Specific jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff's claims or causes of action "arise out of or relate to"the defendant's contacts with the forum state.SeeBurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528(1985)(quotingHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404(1984)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction."Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate."Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 800(citingSher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361(9th Cir.1990)).In determining whether jurisdiction is appropriate, the court is permitted to consider evidence introduced by declaration or affidavit and it may order jurisdictional discovery, if necessary.Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922(9th Cir.2001)(citingData Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285(9th Cir.1977)).If the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is not based upon an evidentiary hearing and is based solely upon written materials, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of facts supporting jurisdiction to survive the motion.Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223(9th Cir.2011)(citingBrayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127(9th Cir.2010))."In such cases, 'we only inquire into whether [the plaintiff's] pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.' "Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800(quotingCaruth v. Int'l Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 128(9th Cir.1995)).Although the plaintiff cannot "simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint," uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true by the court.SeeCollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073(9th Cir.2011)(citation omitted).Finally, "[c]onflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor."Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800(citations omitted).

III.DISCUSSION

Imba Tech and Suga argue that no Court in the United States can exercise personal...