“Purposeful availment analysis examines whether the defendant’s contacts with the 10 || forum are attributable to his own actions or are solely the actions of the plaintiff.’””
How later courts described this case
- “Purposeful availment analysis examines whether the defendant’s contacts with the 10 || forum are attributable to his own actions or are solely the actions of the plaintiff.’””
- “This ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant 12 || will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ 13 || contacts, ... or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 COLLIN STARKES, Case No. 24-cv-03226-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS
10 JOHN GREENE, Re: ECF No. 9
Defendant.
11
12
13 Before the Court is Defendant John Greene’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. The Court
14 will grant the motion.
15 I. BACKGROUND
16 On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff Collin Starkes filed this action against Greene, the Chief
17 Financial Officer (“CFO”) of Discover Bank, alleging that on or around October 17, 2022, he
18 provided Discover with “legal tender” in the form of a “lawful note” which worked to satisfy his
19 debt with Discover. ECF 1-1 at 4–6. Starkes alleges that Greene was obligated, on behalf of
20 Discover, to accept his “lawful note” as a full discharge of his debt. Id. at 4. Specifically, he
21 alleges that “Discover financial has chosen to dishonor [his] lawful Note and refused to zero the
22 account. Notes are considered as legal tender for debts, according to the code.” Id. Further, he
23 claims that “[l]awful money is no longer available for payment of debt in our economic system.”
24 Id. Starkes brought this action alleging dishonor in commerce, fraud, racketeering, and theft of
25 public funds, demanding $1,000,000.00 for each claim. Id. at 5.
26 II. JURISDICTION
27 The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1 III. LEGAL STANDARD
2 When a defendant objects to the Court’s personal jurisdiction over it pursuant to Federal
3 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is
4 proper.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Absent an evidentiary
5 hearing, however, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id.
6 “Uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true”, and “[c]onflicts
7 between the parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s
8 favor.” Id. (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.
9 2004)). “Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the
10 district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits.” Schwarzenegger, 374
11 F.3d at 800. “Because California’s long-arm jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due
12 process requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the
13 same.” Id. at 800–01.
14 IV. DISCUSSION
15 “Personal jurisdiction must exist for each claim asserted against a defendant.” Action
16 Embroidery Corp v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts “have
17 recognized two types of personal jurisdiction ‘general’ (sometimes called ‘all-purpose’)
18 jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case-linked’) jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers Squibb
19 Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017). Greene contends that the Court lacks both general
20 and specific jurisdiction over him, ECF No. 9 at 10–14, and Starkes has conceded the Court lacks
21 personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 21.
22 A. General Jurisdiction
23 “A court with general jurisdiction may hear any claim against that defendant, even if all the
24 incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different State.” Bristol-Myers, 582 U.S. at 262
25 (emphasis omitted). General jurisdiction arises “when [the defendant’s] affiliations with the State
26 are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.”
27 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). “The ‘paradigm’ for
1 Anchor Semiconductor, Inc., 20-cv-06846-EJD, 2021 WL 3037701, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 19,
2 2021) (quoting Goodyear, 563 U.S. at 924).
3 Greene does not have “continuous and systematic” contacts with California. He is a
4 resident of Illinois and works for an Illinois based company as its CFO. Greene Decl. ¶¶ 3–5, ECF
5 No 9-1. Greene has never resided in California and owns no property in the state. Id. ¶ 6. He
6 occasionally visits California for professional or personal reasons, id. ¶ 7, but this is not enough to
7 confer general jurisdiction. See Elite Semiconductor, Inc., 2021 WL 3037701, at * 7 (“An
8 individual’s frequent visits to the forum, or even his owning property in a forum, do not, alone
9 justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over him.”).
10 B. Specific Jurisdiction
11 Specific jurisdiction arises when a defendant’s contacts with the forum give rise to the
12 claim in question. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014). “The inquiry whether
13 a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘focuses on the
14 relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277,
15 283–84 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984)). “[T]here must
16 be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an
17 occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.’”
18 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 582 U.S. at 262 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). Thus, specific
19 jurisdiction exists only when the claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the
20 forum state. See id.
21 The Ninth Circuit has established a three-part test to determine whether a court has specific
22 personal jurisdiction over a defendant:
23 (1) the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities
or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof;
24 or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the
privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the
25 benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which
arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and
26 (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and
substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
27
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. “The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two
1 prongs of the test.” Jd. “Ifthe plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these prongs, personal jurisdiction
2 || is not established in the forum state.” Jd. Ifthe plaintiff satisfies both prongs, “the burden then
3 shifts to the defendant to “present a compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be
4 reasonable.” /d. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985)).
5 Starkes has not met his burden regarding either of the first two prongs. Starkes’s only
6 || allegation against Greene is that he sent Greene multiple letters to his place of business in Illinois,
7 requesting that Greene discharge Starkes’s debt to Discover. This does not constitute purposeful
8 activity by Greene in California. See Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1995 (9th
9 || Cir. 1988) (“Purposeful availment analysis examines whether the defendant’s contacts with the
10 || forum are attributable to his own actions or are solely the actions of the plaintiff.’””); see also
11 Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 (“This ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant
12 || will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’
13 || contacts, ... or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person”); Davis v. Metro
14 || Prods., Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1989) (“a person’s mere association with a corporation
3 15 that causes injury in the forum state is not sufficient in itself to permit that forum to assert
a 16 || jurisdiction over the person.”).
3 17 Accordingly, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Greene.
1g CONCLUSION
19 For the foregoing reasons Greene’s motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is without
20 leave to amend, as the Court finds amendment would be futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
21 Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clerk shall enter judgment and close
22 || the file.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: September 17, 2024 .
25 JON S. TIGAR
26 ited States District Judge
27
28