Scanlon v. Curtis Int'l Ltd.

• Decision Date: 10 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO,1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO
• Citation: 465 F.Supp.3d 1054
• Parties: Roman SCANLON, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS INTERNATIONAL LTD., and Technicolor SA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

465 F.Supp.3d 1054

Roman SCANLON, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.CURTIS INTERNATIONAL LTD., and Technicolor SA, Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed June 10, 2020

Adam Joshua Gutride, Marie Ann McCrary, Seth Safier, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

A. John Peter Mancini, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan W. Thomas, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, Carmine Zarlenga, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, John Nadolenco, Mayer Brown, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING TECHNICOLOR SA'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Roman Scanlon initiated this action by filing a class action complaint on May 3, 2019 against defendants Curtis International Ltd. and Technicolor SA (collectively, "defendants") in the Merced County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-4.) Therein, based upon his allegation that defendants misrepresented to him and others similarly situated that they were purchasing digital home theater projectors with specific brightness ratings, he asserted causes of action for: 1) fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; 2) breach of contract¹ ; 3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. ; 4) violation of California's False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq. ; 5) negligent misrepresentation; 6) unjust enrichment² ; and 7) unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive trade practices, California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Doc. No. 1-4 at 2.) Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and others similarly situated compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. (Id. at 28–30.) Defendants timely removed the case to this federal court on July 9, 2019 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

On October 10, 2019, defendant Technicolor SA filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that this court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff Scanlon filed his opposition on December 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 28.) Defendant Technicolor SA filed its reply on December 1, 2019. (Doc. No. 30.)

The court has determined the motion to dismiss is suitable for decision based on the papers under Local Rule 230(g) and, for the reasons explained below, will grant defendant Technicolor SA's motion to dismiss while also granting plaintiff leave to amend.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff is a citizen of Merced, California. (Doc. No. 1-4 ¶ 9.) Defendant Technicolor SA is a French Société Anonyme (a type of public company), with its principal place of business and headquarters in Paris, France. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Technicolor SA "does business through Technicolor USA, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana." (Id. ) However, defendant Technicolor SA's "General Counsel Corporate" filed a declaration stating that Technicolor USA, Inc. ("Technicolor USA") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in Los Angeles, California. (Doc. No. 18-2 ¶ 7 (Declaration of Ségolène Simonin-du Boullay).) Defendant Technicolor SA is the parent company of more than 110 companies worldwide. (Id. ¶ 7.) Technicolor SA owns 100% of the stock of its subsidiary, Technicolor USA. (Id. ) Technicolor USA is not a party to this action. (See generally Doc. No 1-4.)

According to the Boullay Declaration, defendant Technicolor SA has no headquarters, offices, or employees in California. (Doc. No. 18-2 ¶ 6.) Boullay asserts that Technicolor SA is not incorporated in California, is not licensed to conduct business in California, and does not sell any goods or services in California. (Id. ) Boullay avers that defendant Technicolor SA and Technicolor USA are separately managed, with separate accounting books and records, separately pay their taxes, and have separate offices and employees. (Id. ¶ 8.) Boullay further asserts in her sworn declaration that defendant Technicolor SA does not have any input or control over Technicolor USA's daily operations. (Id. ) Boullay contends that all of defendant Technicolor SA's trademark-licensing activities, including quality control and inspection of trademark use, are undertaken by Technicolor SA's employees in France. (Id. ¶ 13.)

"Technicolor's" website "affirmatively represents that "Technicolor" has its ‘North American headquarters in Los Angeles.’ " (Doc. No. 28 at 6 (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Ex. 2).) Plaintiff has also submitted "Technicolor's LinkedIn page" listing Paris as its headquarters and two locations in California (id. at 7 (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Ex. 4)), and a Google Maps screen image showing "at least seven Technicolor offices in California" (id. (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Exs. 4, 5)). According to plaintiff, "Technicolor" has over 3,000 employees in the United States and is recruiting employees for jobs in California. (Id. (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Exs. 7–9).) Four members of "Technicolor's" thirteen-member Executive Committee are in California. (Id. (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Ex. 8).) Plaintiff submits as evidence in support of his opposition to the pending motion Technicolor SA's 2016 Registration Document filed with French regulators. (Id. (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Ex. 10).) Plaintiff contends that "Technicolor's" "Internal Audit Department consists of 12 auditors" located in France, California, and Indianapolis. (Id. (citing Doc. No. 28-2, Ex. 10 at 30).)

The 2016 Registration Document provides that "unless otherwise stated, the ‘Company’ refers to Technicolor SA and ‘Technicolor’ and the ‘Group’ refers to Technicolor SA together with its consolidated affiliates." (Doc. No. 30-1 ¶ 20 (quoting Doc. No. 30-3, Ex. B at 5).) In Boullay's reply affidavit, Boullay states "[a]s a parent Company, Technicolor SA has the legal obligation under French Law to disclose a declaration of extra-financial performance in its Registration Document. For this purpose, Technicolor SA has to compile the data collected from all of its subsidiaries." (Doc. No. 30-1 ¶ 17.)

Defendant Curtis International Ltd. ("Curtis") is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Mississauga, Ontario. (Doc. No. 1-4 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Technicolor SA is the parent company of defendant Curtis. (Id. ¶ 3.) However, defendant Technicolor SA's "General Counsel Corporate" states that defendant Technicolor SA is not the parent company of defendant Curtis. (Doc. No. 18-2 ¶ 9.) Rather, Technicolor SA contends that defendant Curtis has a license ("the License") to use the "RCA" trademark in Canada and the United States for various household and consumer electronic devices. (Id. ¶ 10.) Defendant Curtis and RCA Trademark Management³ negotiated the License in Canada and France. (Id. ) RCA Trademark Management subsequently and duly assigned its rights and obligations under the License to Technicolor SA. (Id. )

B. The Claims

In his complaint plaintiff alleges as follows. Defendant Curtis manufactures and distributes consumer electronics, which defendant Curtis sells under the RCA trademark through a licensing agreement with Technicolor SA. (Doc. No. 1-4 ¶ 27.) Defendants have marketed and sold projectors that purportedly have a brightness of 2,000 lumens⁴ or more. (Id. ¶ 29.) Defendants induced plaintiff and others similarly situated to purchase select RCA-brand home-theater projectors⁵ by misrepresenting the projectors’ lumens ratings. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 5, 6.) According to plaintiff: "Had Plaintiff and those similarly situated been adequately informed and not intentionally deceived by Defendants, he would have acted differently by, without limitation, not purchasing (or paying less for) the [Accused Products]." (Id. ¶ 73.)

In contrast, in her declaration the Boullay states: "Technicolor SA did not design or manufacture any of the Accused Products. Technicolor SA did not distribute or sell any of the Accused Products in any State in the United States. Technicolor SA did not choose, or have any input into, the ‘lumens’ terminology used for the Accused Products."

(Doc. No. 18-2 ¶ 12.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may seek dismissal of an action for lack of personal jurisdiction. In opposing such a motion to, the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is appropriate lies with the plaintiff. See Picot v. Weston , 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) ; Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. , 611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Boschetto v. Hansing , 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). When a defendant's motion to dismiss is to be decided on the pleadings, affidavits, and discovery materials, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists in order for the action to proceed. See Picot , 780 F.3d at 1211 ; Love , 611 F.3d at 608 ; Boschetto , 539 F.3d at 1015.

In determining whether plaintiff has met his burden to show personal jurisdiction, the court accepts plaintiff's allegations as true, and any conflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Love , 611 F.3d at 608 ; Boschetto , 539 F.3d at 1015 ; Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). However, in meeting its burden a plaintiff "cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint." Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int'l, Inc. , 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977).

"Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the district court sits applies." Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB , 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993) ; see also Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme , 433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir....