Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02210/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02210-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Freelife International, Inc., a Connecticut

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

American Educational Music

Publications, Inc., a Delaware company,

et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-2210-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant American Education Music Publications, Inc. (“American Music”) renews

its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. #26. A response and reply have

been filed. Dkt. ##28, 34. The Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background.

Plaintiff commenced this action on October 15, 2007, alleging defamation,

interference with contractual relationships, and breach of contract. Dkt. #1-1. Defendants

removed the case to this Court on November 15, 2007, based on diversity jurisdiction, and

filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on November 21, 2007. Dkt. ##1,

11. The Court granted the motion with respect to Defendant Noelle Boucherle, denied it with

respect to Defendant David Lucas Burge, and denied it without prejudice with respect to the

remaining defendants to permit jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. #11 at 8-9. The Court

subsequently granted a stipulation to dismiss Defendant Gary Boucherle without prejudice

and to substitute Defendant American Music for Defendant Clear Perceptions Marketing

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 6
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 -

(“CP Marketing”). Dkt. #27. The parties agreed that CP Marketing is a dba used by

American Music, not a separate legal entity. Defendant American Music renewed the motion

to dismiss on April 21, 2008. Dkt. #26. 

II. Personal Jurisdiction.

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See, e.g. Zigler v.

Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the Court is resolving the

motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff “need make only a prima

facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d

1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff must establish facts that if true would support personal

jurisdiction. Id. Disputed facts must be decided in Plaintiff’s favor. See Doe v. Unocal

Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001).

Because there is no federal statute that governs personal jurisdiction in this case,

Arizona’s long-arm rules apply. See Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 559 (9th

Cir. 1995). Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(a) “provides for personal jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of federal due process.” Doe v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 112 F.3d

1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Batton v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 736 P.2d 2, 4

(Ariz. 1987)). Federal due process requires that a defendant have sufficient minimum

contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of personal jurisdiction will not offend

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326

U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 

Personal jurisdiction is either general or specific. See Helicopter Nacionales de

Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 nn.8-9 (1984); Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 473. Because

Plaintiff does not claim that general jurisdiction exists in this case, the Court must determine

whether there is specific jurisdiction. 

The Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test for specific jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction

exists if (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting

activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, (2) the claim

arises out of the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 6
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

1

Plaintiff contends that the Court’s March 6, 2008 order found sufficient evidence to

establish personal jurisdiction over CP Marketing (now American Music). Dkt. #28 at 2-3.

The Court did not resolve whether it had jurisdiction over CP Marketing, but instead denied

the motion to “grant Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.” Dkt. #11 at 8. 

- 3 -

reasonable. See, e.g., Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086

(9th Cir. 2000); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-76 (1985). The Court

will address each of these three factors.

A. Purposeful Direction.

Plaintiff argues that American Music purposefully directed its actions at FreeLife, an

Arizona resident, by creating and supporting the breathe.org website.1

 Dkt. #28 at 2. The

first prong of the specific jurisdiction test can be satisfied if the intended effects of the

defendant’s non-forum conduct were purposely directed at and caused harm in the forum

state. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-90 (1984); Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, 854 F.2d

1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (interpreting Calder as modifying the purposeful availment rubric

to allow “the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant whose only contact with the forum is

the purposeful direction of a foreign act having effect in the forum state”) (internal citations

omitted). To satisfy the Calder effects test, the defendant “must have (1) committed an

intentional act, which was (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the

brunt of which is suffered and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the

forum state.” Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1087 (citing Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d

1316, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998)). When applying the “effects” test, there must be “something

more” than a foreseeable effect in the forum. Id. There must be “‘express aiming’ at the

forum state.” Id.; see Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006).

Express aiming occurs when the “defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct

targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.”

Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1087.

The Court previously held that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that

Defendant Burge intentionally aimed the breathe.org website at Plaintiff, an Arizona resident.

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Plaintiff asserts that American Music employees Gary Boucherle and Laura Miller

helped maintain breathe.org. Dkt. #28 at 4. But the portion of the record cited describes only

one event where Burge asked Boucherle to help him download files in preparation for this

case and two instances where Miller was reimbursed by American Music for purchasing Goji

juice. Dkt. #28-2 at 17:9-20:24. Because this allegation is not supported by the record, the

Court has not relied on it reaching a decision on this motion.

- 4 -

Dkt. #11 at 6. The evidence addressed in the current motion, viewed in the light most

favorable to Plaintiff, suggests that American Music was substantially involved in the

creation and operation of breathe.org.

Plaintiff has presented evidence of the following facts: American Music originally

purchased the breathe.org domain name (Dkt. #9-1 ¶ 3); American Music promoted

breathe.org through a hyperlink on another website it owned – www.perfectpitch.com

(Dkt. #6-2 ¶ 11, Dkt. #6-3 at 4, Dkt. #28 at 2); American Music’s office, computers, and

software were used to create and maintain breathe.org (Dkt. #28-2 at 7:15-8:8, Dkt. #28 at

2-4); funds from American Music were used to pay expenses related to breathe.org (id. at

23), including payments to a consultant to develop strategies for increasing traffic on

breathe.org (id. at 21:20-22:3), payments to purchase literature on Goji berries (id. at 18:1-

14), and payments to purchase bottles of Goji juice (id. at 19:20-20:20, Dkt. #28 at 2-4,

Dkt. #28 at 4, see Dkt. #26-2 at 25); American Music’s president and sole owner registered

as a FreeLife marketing executive in order to obtain information about FreeLife and its

products (Dkt. #6-2 ¶ 13; Dkt. #6-3 at 13-18); and American Music operates several websites

related to natural foods, sells products through some of these sites (Dkt. #6-1 ¶¶ 15-29, id.

at 37-74), and therefore has a financial motive to disparage Freelife as a competitor (Dkt. #28

at 3).2

 Defendant of course disputes many of these facts, but the Court must accept them as

true for purposes of this motion. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d at 922 (“‘conflicts between the

facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in [plaintiff’s] favor for purposes

of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists’”) (quoting AT&T v.

Compagnie Bruzelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996)). Assuming these facts to

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 4 of 6
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 -

be true, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case that American

Music participated fully in the creation and operation of breathe.org, a website that directly

targeted FreeLife, an Arizona company.

B. “Arising Out Of.”

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a “but for” test for determining whether a plaintiff’s

cause of action arises out of a defendant’s forum-related activities. See Omeluk v. Langstein

Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1995). The “arising out of” requirement

is met if, “but for” the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, the cause of action

would not have arisen. See Terracom, 49 F.3d at 561. Neither side disputes this issue, and

in any case, this cause of action would not exist but for Defendants’ creation and operation

of breathe.org.

C. Reasonableness.

An unreasonable exercise of jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clause even if the

“purposeful availment” and “arising out of” requirements are satisfied. See Int’l Shoe, 326

U.S. at 316; Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 474-75. A district court presumes, however, that its exercise

of jurisdiction over a defendant is reasonable if these two requirements are met. See Ballard,

65 F.3d at 1500. The burden then shifts to the defendant to “‘present a compelling case that

the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.’” Id.

(quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477).

The Ninth Circuit considers seven factors to determine whether the exercise of

specific jurisdiction over a defendant is reasonable: (1) the extent of the defendant’s

purposeful interjection into the forum state, (2) the burden on the defendant of litigating in

the forum, (3) the extent of conflicts with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state, (4) the

forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of

the dispute, (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and

effective relief, and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. See Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 475

(citing Terracom, 49 F.3d at 561); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286,

292 (1980) (listing several of the seven factors).

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 5 of 6
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 -

Defendant American Music does not argue in its renewed motion to dismiss that

personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable in this case. Dkt. #26. Although Defendant’s

original motion to dismiss broadly claimed that “it would be unreasonable to exercise

jurisdiction over any defendant,” it failed to describe how jurisdiction is unreasonable over

American Music in particular. Dkt. #4 at 10. This argument falls short of the “compelling

case” standard. The presumption that jurisdiction is reasonable has not been rebutted. 

III. Conclusion.

Because Plaintiff has met its burden to make a prima facie showing that American

Music purposefully directed its actions against an Arizona resident and that the cause of

action arose out of this conduct, and because Defendant failed to prove that specific

jurisdiction is unreasonable, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over American

Music.

IT IS ORDERED that the renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

(Dkt. #26) is denied. 

DATED this 12th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02210-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/12/08 Page 6 of 6