Rodionova

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

IANA RODIONOVA,

7 Case No. 25-cv-09135-SK

Plaintiff,

8

v. ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

9

TURKISH AIRLINES, INC, Regarding Docket Nos. 17, 22, 33, 38

10

Defendant.

11

12 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss

13 jurisdiction filed by Turkish Airlines, Inc. (“Turkish Airlines”) and Turk Hava Yollari, A.O. dba

14 Turkish Airlines (“THY”). The Court finds this motion and the other pending motions suitable for

15 disposition without oral argument and VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 20, 2026. See

16 N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority,

17 and the record in the case, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below.

18 BACKGROUND

19 In her initial and in her first amended complaint, Plaintiff Iana Rodionova (“Plaintiff”)

20 asserts claims against Turkish Airlines. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8.) Plaintiff alleges that she incurred

21 damages when her international flights were cancelled. The first flight concerns a flight between

22 Istanbul, Turkey and Panama City. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that she lost nights in Almaty,

23 Kazakhstan and in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic as a result. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that

24 she purchased connection roundtrip tickets on Russia Airlines between Russia and Kazakhstan and

25 that problems with her flights required her to purchase hotel stays in Almaty, Kazakhstan and in

26 Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. (Id.)

27 On a different international flight Plaintiff purchased with Turkish Airlines, Plaintiff

1 moved her to a later flight. Plaintiff alleges that she incurred damages due to this cancellation and

2 delay. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant claimed that Avianca Airlines, with ticketing offices

3 in Miami, Florida, San Salvador, El Salvador, and Bogata, Columbia, was its agent. (Id.) Plaintiff

4 alleges that she used a California credit card with a California billing address to purchase the

5 tickets. (Id.) Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good

6 faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false advertising and unfair

7 business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200. (Id.)

8 Plaintiff alleges that Turkish Airlines has a registered agent in California and regularly

9 operates flights to and from San Francisco International Airport. (Id.)

10 In response to the assertion that Turkish Airlines is not an airline and is not the proper

11 defenant, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to change the defendant to THY. (Dkt. No. 33.) Even

12 though THY is not yet a defendant, the Court will collectively refer to Turkish Airlines and THY

13 as “Defendants”.

14 Defendants argue that Plaintiff erroneously sued Turkish Airlines instead of THY. (Dkt.

15 No. 38.) However, “[t]o avoid prolonged motion practice,” Defendants jointly move to dismiss

16 Plaintiff’s claims on several grounds, including that there is no personal jurisdiction over either of

17 them. (Id.)

18 ANALYSIS

19 A. Applicable Legal Standards.

20 In a motion challenging personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal

21 Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal

22 court, has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin

23 Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff must “come forward with facts, by

24 affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction.” Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th

25 Cir. 1986). “Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if it is permitted by a long-arm

26 statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal due process.” Pebble Beach

27 Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Because California’s long-arm statute is co-

1 and federal due process are the same. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801.

2 Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d

3 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). General jurisdiction exists where the defendant’s affiliations with the

4 forum state are “so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum

5 state.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires

6 Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[S]uch

7 sweeping jurisdiction” is generally only appropriate over a corporation in the forums where it is

8 “at home” – i.e. where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business. Ford Motor Co. v.

9 Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (noting that “in an exceptional case a

10 corporation might also be at home elsewhere”) (quoting Daimler, 517 U.S. at 139 n.19) (internal

11 quotation marks omitted)).

12 Specific jurisdiction over a defendant exists where: (1) the defendant has purposefully

13 directed its activities at the forum state or has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of doing

14 business in the forum; (2) the plaintiff’s claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3)

15 the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802; see

16 also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-77 (1985). “The plaintiff bears the

17 burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test. If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these

18 prongs, personal jurisdiction is not established in the forum state.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at

19 802 (internal citation omitted). “On the other hand, if the plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of

20 the first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case that the

21 exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir.

22 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

23 B. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

24 Plaintiff may demonstrate that Defendants are subject to general or specific jurisdiction.

25 She does neither.

26 1. General Jurisdiction.

27 As noted above, general jurisdiction for corporations are generally limited to their place of

1 Court held open the possibility that there may be exceptional cases where a corporation’s

2 operations may be so substantial and of such a nature to render the corporation at home in a state

3 other than its place of incorporation or principal place of business. Id. at 139, n.19. Plaintiff

4 alleges that Turkish Airlines has a registered agent in California and regularly operates flights to

5 and from San Francisco International Airport, but neither of these facts is sufficient for general

6 jurisdiction. “The designation of an agent for service of process and qualification to do business

7 in California alone are insufficient to permit general jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.

8 Superior Court, 1 Cal. 5th 783, 798 (2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Bristol-Myers

9 Squibb Co., 582 U.S. 255 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nor is regularly

10 operating flights in and out of an airport sufficient for general jurisdiction. Vallarta v. United

11 Airlines, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 3d 790, 799 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (finding United Airlines’ operation of

12 “hubs” out of two California airports and employing a substantial number of California employees

13 insufficient). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate general jurisdiction over

14 Defendants.

15 2. Specific Jurisdiction.

16 To demonstrate specific jurisdiction, Plaintiff must show that Defendants purposefully

17 directed their activities at the forum state or have purposefully availed themself of the privileges of

18 doing business in the forum and that her claims arise out of those activities. Schwarzenegger, 374

19 F.3d at 802. In tort cases, courts focus on whether a defendant purposefully directs his activities at

20 the forum and on whether the effects of those activities are felt within the forum. Yahoo! Inc. v.

21 La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006). In contract

22 cases, courts look to whether a defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting

23 activities” or “consummate[s][a] transaction” in the forum, focusing on activities such as

24 delivering goods or executing a contract. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Courts

25 also have applied the purposeful availment test in tort cases, where a plaintiff’s tort claims arise

26 out of a contractual relationship. See, e.g., Nu-Cal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg, LLC, 887 F. Supp.

27 2d 977, 989 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Richmond Technologies, Inc. v. Aumtech Business Solutions,

1 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990)).

2 “Evidence of availment is typically action taking place in the forum that invokes the

3 benefits and protections of the laws in the forum.” Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151,

4 1155 (9th Cir. 2006). “A showing that a defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of

5 doing business in a forum state typically consists of evidence of the defendant’s actions in the

6 forum, such as executing or performing a contract there.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. “At

7 the end of the day, the purposeful direction and availment tests simply frame our inquiry into the

8 defendant’s ‘purposefulness’ vis-à-vis the forum state, ensuring that defendants are not haled into

9 a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts.” Doe v. Deutsche

10 Lufthansa, 157 F.4th 1103, 1111 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (finding

11 contract and tort claims arose out of the airline’s California-related activities by breaching and

12 conduct arising out of the contract for flight into California).

13 “The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident

14 defendant focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden

15 v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283-84 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

16 Specifically, “the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the

17 forum State.” Id. at 284. The “primary concern” is “the burden on the defendant.” Bristol-Myers

18 Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen

19 Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980)). The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]wo

20 principles animate the ‘defendant-focused’ inquiry.” Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc.,

21 874 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 284). First, the relationship

22 between the nonresident defendant, the forum, and the litigation “must arise out of contacts that

23 the ‘defendant himself” creates with the forum State.” Id. (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 284)

24 (emphasis in original). Second, the minimum contacts analysis examines “the defendant’s

25 contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.”

26 Id. (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 285). “[A] defendant’s relationship with a plaintiff or third party,

27 standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 286.

1 Rather, it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State

2 that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285. “[A] contract alone does

3 not automatically establish minimum contacts in the plaintiff’s home forum.” Picot v. Weston,

4 780 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Additionally, “[m]erely “random,

5 fortuitous, or attenuated” contacts are not sufficient. Id. (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475).

6 “Rather, there must be ‘actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with

7 the forum State.’” Id. (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475) (emphasis in original). The

8 “defendant must have performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the

9 transaction of business within the forum state.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

10 omitted). Courts “consider ‘prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with

11 the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing.’” Id. (quoting Burger King, 471

12 U.S. at 479).

13 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “the fact that a contract envisions one party

14 discharging his obligations in the forum state cannot, standing alone, justify the exercise of

15 jurisdiction over another party to the contract.” Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols., Ltd., 71 F.4th

16 at 1163 (citation omitted) (finding no jurisdiction where, except for defendant’s employees

17 entering the forum state a couple of times, all communication between the parties was remote

18 through phone and email, defendant did not advertise in forum state, no evidence that defendant

19 benefited from the plaintiff’s residence in the forum or sought to benefit from forum’s laws, and

20 none of the contract terms invoked the forum’s laws); see also LeGarie v. Nurse, 2021 WL

21 5771144 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2021); Netgear, Inc. v. Redzone Wireless, LLC, 2017 WL 2351359, at

22 *3-5 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2017).

23 Notably, here, Plaintiff does not allege any negotiations occurring in or any part of the

24 contract performance occurring in California. Plaintiff purchased, through a travel agent,

25 international flights that did not take off, land, or have a connecting flight through California. The

26 hotels Plaintiff allegedly had to make reservations in were not located in California. The only

27 connection Plaintiff alleges with California is that her form of payment was a credit card with a

] Defendants that create a substantial connection with California. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to

2 || demonstrate personal jurisdiction and the Court, thus GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss on

3 || that basis.

4 Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's case for lack of jurisdiction, the Court DENIES

5 || her motions to recover cost of service, to deny foreign service immunity, and to file an amended

6 || complaint as MOOT.

7 CONCLUSION

8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: July 16, 2026

+

SALLIE KIM

12 United States Magistrate Judge

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28