Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00919/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00919-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIMON HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, INC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 6]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant America Cruise Lines, Inc’s 

(“ACL”) motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 6]. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court 

finds it suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in 

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion 

is granted.

I. Background

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant ACL asserting claims for 

wrongful termination, retaliation, breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, 

negligent misrepresentation, unpaid wages, conversion and unjust enrichment in violation 

of California law. [Doc. No. 1.]

Plaintiff asserts that in February 2017 he was interviewed by Mr. Thomas Leonard 

on-board one of ACL’s ships in Portland, Oregon. [Id. at ¶ 7.] Following the interview, 

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

Plaintiff was offered a position by ACL as an Executive Chef on a cruise ship, the final 

destination of the ship to which Plaintiff was assigned was “Jeuna-Alaska” [sic]. [Id. at ¶¶ 

9, 10.] Plaintiff alleges that his working and living conditions were not as promised, that 

he worked over 16 hour days without being compensated for overtime, and that after he 

complained about the working conditions he was fired. See generally Doc. No. 1.

On July 2, 201, Defendant ACL filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and for improper venue 

under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The Court issued a briefing schedule [Doc. No. 

8], Plaintiff filed his opposition [Doc. No. 10], and Defendant filed its reply [Doc. No 11].

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a district court to dismiss an action 

for lack of personal jurisdiction. “Where defendants move to dismiss a complaint for lack 

of personal jurisdiction, plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is 

appropriate.” Dole Foods Co. Inc. v. Watts, 303 F. 3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002). “The 

court may consider evidence presented in affidavits to assist in its determination and may 

order discovery on the jurisdictional issues.” Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Ass’n, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)).

A court’s power to excise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is

limited by two independent constraints, namely the applicable state personal jurisdiction 

statute and the constitutional principles of due process. Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 

1361 (9th Cir. 1990); see also In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 

F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is 

proper if permitted by a state’s long-arm statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does 

not violate federal due process.”). “Under California’s long-arm statute, California state 

courts may exercise personal jurisdiction ‘on any basis not inconsistent with the 

Constitution of this state or of the United States.’” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 

753 (2014) (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 410.10 (West 2004)). Thus, “the 

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the same.”

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-801 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to exercise personal 

jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the defendant must have “certain minimum 

contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. 

Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 

(1945) (internal quotations omitted)). This minimum contacts jurisdiction may be either 

“general or all-purpose jurisdiction,” or “specific or case-linked jurisdiction.” Id. at 919

(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), a defendant may bring a motion to 

dismiss for improper venue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). When venue is improper, the 

Court can either dismiss the action, “or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case 

to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

III. Discussion

Defendant ACL moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of either specific or general personal jurisdiction over it 

because it does not conduct or solicit any business in the State of California. [Doc. No. 6-

1 at 3-7.]

In support of its motion to dismiss, ACL submitted a declaration from Paul E. 

Taiclet, Vice President of Operations of American Cruise Lines, Inc. Mr. Taiclet attests 

that he has personal knowledge of the matters on which he is declaring and that ACL is a 

Delaware corporation headquartered in Connecticut. [Doc. No. 6-2 at ¶ 2.] He declares 

that ACL does not conduct business in California, does not employ individuals to work in 

California, does not have a physical presence in California, does not have a bank account 

in California, is not registered to do business in California, and does not own any real or 

personal property in California. [Id. at ¶ 3.] Finally, Mr. Taiclet states that Plaintiff was 

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

interviewed for his job with ACL in Portland, Oregon and “the cruise ship on which 

Plaintiff worked made no stops in California.” [Id. at ¶ 4.]

Here, because the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is based on affidavits

and documents, Plaintiff is required to make a prima facie showing that ACL is subject to 

personal jurisdiction in California. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154

(9th Cir. 2006). The uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and 

factual conflicts must be resolved in Plaintiff’s favor. Marvix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., 

Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). In order to survive the motion to dismiss, 

Plaintiff must show that ACL has minimum contacts with the forum state as will allow 

exercise of personal jurisdiction over it but, “bare formulaic accusations” that a defendant 

maintains sufficient contacts with California are inadequate. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 

800.

Plaintiff has submitted what is in essence a one page opposition to Defendant’s 

motion that generally disputes that ACL lacks sufficient contacts with California to support 

the application of either general or specific jurisdiction without addressing any of the 

factors necessary to support such an assertion. Along with his response Plaintiff has 

attached copies of a pay stubs for the period he was employed by ACL [Doc. No. 10 at 5-

13] and a copy of the relevant W2 Wage and Tax Statement [Id. at 15-16]. By tendering 

such a limited opposition Plaintiff has effectively conceded that general jurisdiction does 

not exist and has not met his burden of demonstrating that ACL “has purposefully directed

[its] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from allegedly injuries 

that arise out of or relate to those activities.’”

“[S]pecific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of ‘issues deriving from, or 

connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.’” Goodyear Dunlop,

564 U.S. at 919. See also Daimler AG, 134 S. Ct. at 758 (the focus is on the “relationship 

among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.”). “When there is no such connection, 

specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected 

activities in the State.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

(2017). The Ninth Circuit uses a three-prong test to determine whether a non-resident 

defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction: (1) [t]he non-resident defendant must 

purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or 

resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the 

privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the 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 (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with 

fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 

802. The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two requirements and if 

successfully met, the “burden then shifts to the defendant to ‘present a compelling case’ 

that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. at 801-802. 

Plaintiff’s cursory suggestion that this Court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state 

employer because it recruited him, a California resident, to work out of state is not 

persuasive. See, e.g., Sarkis v. Lajcak, No. C-08-01911 RMW, 2009 WL 3367069, at *3-

5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009) (holding that pre-employment discussions and negotiations 

occurring in California did not create personal jurisdiction over foreign employer who 

hired California attorney to perform work in Bosnia). Neither is Plaintiff’s perfunctory 

implication that the withholding of California state income tax from ACL’s California 

employees establishes personal jurisdiction convincing. By withholding state taxes and 

paying them to the California Department of Revenue, ACL was not seeking to avail itself 

of the benefits of California’s laws – it was simply doing what the law required it. See 

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (the “purposeful availment

requirement ensures that a defendant will be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 

‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts.”).

Furthermore, none of the actions allegedly taken with respect to Plaintiff occurred 

in California. The interview that led to Plaintiff’s employment with ACL took place in 

Oregon and the alleged contact violations occurred outside of the state of California. The 

only link to California appears to be the fact that Plaintiff resides within the state, this alone 

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

is not enough to suggest that ACL purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing 

business here. See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 

433 F.3d 1199, at 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802) (in 

contract cases the inquiry typically focuses on “whether a defendant ‘purposefully avails 

itself of the privilege of conducting activities’ or ‘consummates a transaction’ in the forum, 

focusing on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract.”); see also Sinatra 

v. National Enquirer, 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (purposeful availment analysis 

examines whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum are attributable to his own 

actions or are solely the actions of the plaintiff.”). 

Nothing before the Court suggests that ACL has purposefully availed itself of the 

state of California’s benefits and protections. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 

the Court finds that ACL is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the first prong, the Court need not 

address whether the claim arises out of or resulted from ACL’s forum related activities or 

whether the third prong of the specific jurisdiction test regarding the reasonableness of 

exercising jurisdiction over Defendant[] in this case would be satisfied. See Pebble Beach, 

453 F.3d at 1155 (concluding that because plaintiff’s claim failed the first prong of the 

minimum contacts test “we need not address whether the claim arose out of or resulted 

from Caddy’s forum-related activities or whether an exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable 

per the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. 462, 476-77 

[] (1985).”); Attilio Giustio Leombruni S.p.A v. Lsil & Co., Inc., Case No. CV 15-002128 

BRO (Ex), 2015 WL 12743878, at * 10 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2015) (declining to address the 

reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate purposeful 

availment).

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:18-cv-0919-CAB-(WVG)

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

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant ACL’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] 

for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

1

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against 

ACL are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to him refiling them in a Court that has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendant. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2018

 

1 Having determined that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over ACL, the Court declines to address 

Defendant’s alternate arguments for dismissal, namely improper venue.

Case 3:18-cv-00919-CAB-WVG Document 12 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7