Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04754/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04754-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK R. ROBERTS dba Mrprotein.com,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY WHITTAKER, SAVANT

NETWORKS, INC., WESTHOST, INC., and

DOES 1 through 20,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04754 JSW

ORDER (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT WHITTAKER’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2)

DENYING DEFENDANT

WESTHOST’S MOTION TO

DISMISS 

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss and to quash filed by Defendant Jeffrey

Whittaker (“Whittaker”) and the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Westhost, Inc.

(“Westhost”) for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(2). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments and relevant legal authority, the

Court hereby GRANTS Whittaker’s motion and DENIES Westhost’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mark B. Roberts (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Whittaker, Westhost,

and Savant Networks, Inc. for their alleged failure to remove old links to Whittaker’s former IP

address before providing Plaintiff with the same IP address. Whittaker and Westhost contend

that personal jurisdiction in this forum is not proper. 

The Court will address the additional specific facts as required in the analysis. 

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Burden to Establish Personal Jurisdiction in Context of Motion to

Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) governs dismissal for lack of personal

jurisdiction. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over a

defendant. Cubbage v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court may consider

evidence presented in affidavits to assist in its determination and may order discovery on the

jurisdictional issues. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285

(9th Cir. 1977). However, when “a district court acts on a defendant’s motion to dismiss

without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of

jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss. . . . That is, the plaintiff need only

demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Ballard v. Savage,

65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles

Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996) (where trial court rules on jurisdictional issue based

on affidavits and without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff need only make a prima facie

showing). Where the facts are not directly controverted, plaintiff’s version of the facts is taken

as true. See AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588. Likewise, conflicts between the facts contained in the

parties’ affidavits must be resolved in a plaintiff’s favor for purposes of deciding whether a

prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922.

B. Legal Standard for Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not invoke a federal statute governing personal jurisdiction. 

Therefore, this Court must apply California’s personal jurisdiction standard. See Dole Food

Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2002). California Code of Civil Procedure §

410.10, governing personal jurisdiction, is coextensive with federal due process requirements. 

Id. Due process precludes a court from asserting jurisdiction over a defendant unless the

defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state. The overriding constitutional

principle is that maintenance of an action in a certain forum may not offend “traditional

conception[s] of fair play and substantial justice.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th

Cir. 1990) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945)). “The

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant

‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” Id. (citing World-Wide Volkswagon

Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). 

Whether a party’s contacts with the forum are sufficient to permit the state to exercise

jurisdiction depends upon the facts of each case. Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional

de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, the parties do not

make any claim for general jurisdiction, i.e. that the Defendants’ contacts with the forum are

“substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” See, e.g., Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287. Rather,

Plaintiff here contends that the Court should exercise specific jurisdiction where “the issue of

whether jurisdiction will lie turns on an evaluation of the nature and quality of the defendant’s

contacts in relation to the cause of action.” See id. 

This Court must employ a three-part test to evaluate the nature and quality of

Defendant’s contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction: “(A) some action must be taken

whereby defendant purposefully avails himself or herself of the privilege of conducting

activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws; (B)

the claim must arise out of or result from defendant’s forum-related activities; and (C) exercise

of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Sher, 911 F.2d at 1361 (citing Cubbage, 744 F.2d at 668).

1. Purposeful Availment.

“To be subject to specific jurisdiction, a defendant must have purposefully avail[ed]

itself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum State, thus invoking the benefits

and protections of its laws.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)

(internal citations omitted). “‘Purposeful availment’ requires that the defendant ‘have

performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of

business within the forum state.” Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (citing Sinatra v. National Enquirer,

Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). With respect to web sites and internet activity, the

Ninth Circuit applies the “sliding scale” approach to jurisdiction utilized by the district court in

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). See Cybersell, Inc.

v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997). Under this approach, “the likelihood that

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and

quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the internet.” Cybersell, 130 F.3d at

419 (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124).

“At one end of this sliding scale, the defendant conducts business transactions over the

Internet with residents of the forum. ... In such situations, jurisdiction is almost always proper,

because the defendant has asserted itself into the forum and made actual contact, often

commercial, with a forum resident. ... At the other end of the scale are ‘passive’ Web sites,

through which the defendant simply posts information to those who access the site, such as

advertisements and informational pieces about the Web site host.” Callaway Golf Corp. v.

Royal Canadian Golf Ass’n, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1202-3 (C. D. Cal. 2000) (citations and

quotations omitted); see also Stomp, Inc. v. Neato, LLC, 61 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1078 (C.D. Cal.

1999) (“personal jurisdiction is not appropriate when a website is merely ... passive ..., but is

appropriate when an entity is conducting business over the Internet”). In sum, courts look “to

the ‘level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on

the Web site’ to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.” 

Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 419 (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124).

Westhost contends that its contacts with California are minimal and do not constitute

purposeful availment. According to Westhost, its only acts were to enter into a service

agreement with Plaintiff under which it would provide remote electronic website hosting

services to Plaintiff. Westhost contends its contacts with Plaintiff in California are insufficient

to establish jurisdiction because Plaintiff initiated the communication between the parties and

Plaintiff happens to live in California. (Westhost’s Mot. at 1, 4.) However, Plaintiff presents

evidence demonstrating that Westhost operates a website through which it conducts business in

California, business which includes the web hosting services provided to Plaintiff through the

service agreement. (Declaration of Mark R. Roberts (“Roberts Decl.”), ¶¶ 4, 7, 9, 10.) Further,

Westhost’s website enables consumers to sign up for its services, which includes a “Sign Up

Now” page with a drop down menu that includes California. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s evidence,

which the Court must take as true for purposes of this motion, demonstrates that Westhost’s

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

website is interactive and commercial, rather than passive. Accordingly, Plaintiff satisfies the

purposeful availment prong with respect to Westhost. See Stomp, 61 F. Supp. 2d at 1078

(finding personal jurisdiction where defendant conducted on-line sales through its website). 

In contrast, Whittaker’s website is a passive website through which he posts educational

information regarding physics and is geared towards students in Michigan. Plaintiff contends

that Whittaker sells products through his website, physicslessons.com. (Roberts Decl., ¶ 13.) 

According to Roberts, Whittaker’s website provides a link to www.cafepress.com/phystore

through which consumers can purchase t-shirts and other items with pictures of Einstein or “I Æ

Physics.” (Id.) The logo PhysicsLessons.com is the most prominent logo on the website selling

these items. (Id.) Whittaker explains that he merely provided links to another website to

purchase science related products, and did so only temporarily. However, the Court need not

decide whether Whittaker’s website is sufficiently commercial to constitute purposeful

availment. As discussed below, Plaintiff fails to establish Whittaker engaged in any forumrelated activities, and thus, has not demonstrated this Court has personal jurisdiction over

Whittaker.

B. Forum-Related Activities

The second prong of the test for specific jurisdiction requires that “the contacts

constituting purposeful availment must be the ones that give rise to the current suit.” Bancroft

& Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000). This requirement

is met here with respect to Westhost. Plaintiff resides in and conducts his business in

California. As part of the web hosting services Westhost provided to Plaintiff, Westhost

provided Plaintiff with an IP address for his business. (Roberts Decl., ¶ 3.) The crux of

Plaintiff’s complaint against Westhost is that Westhost was allegedly negligent in assigning

Plaintiff an IP address without first determining that the address was free of the links to

Whittaker’s former website. (Opp. at 9.) Thus, Plaintiff’s action against Westhost arises out of

Westhost’s forum-related activities.

On the other hand, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that Whittaker engaged in

any activity in California, let alone forum-related activities which form the basis of Plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 5 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

complaint against Whittaker. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that exercising

personal jurisdiction over Whittaker would be proper, and the Court thus grants Whittaker’s

motion on this basis.

C. Reasonableness of Exercising Jurisdiction

The third prong of the test for specific jurisdiction requires that the exercise of

jurisdiction be reasonable. Sher, 911 F.2d at 1361. Because this Court finds that Westhost

purposefully availed itself in California, there is a presumption that exercising jurisdiction over

Westhost is reasonable. Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d

2392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986). To overcome this presumption, the burden is on Westhost to

“present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render

jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985). 

Westhost argues that exercising personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable because it has no

contacts with California and has done nothing to avail itself of this forum. (Westhost’s Mot. at

6.) However, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of

purposeful availment. Accordingly, Westhost fails to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness. Therefore, the Court denies Westhost’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Westhost’s motion to dismiss and

GRANTS Whittaker’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04754-JSW Document 22 Filed 01/06/06 Page 6 of 6