Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06475/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06475-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZITHROMIA LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GAZEUS NEGOCIOS DE INTERNET SA, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-06475-JD 

ORDER RE PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION 

Re: Dkt. No. 32

As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff Zithromia and defendant Gazeus are competing 

suppliers of mobile games. Consumers buy their products through Google Play, the Apple App 

Store, and directly from the parties’ websites. The gravamen of the complaint is that Gazeus 

improperly convinced Apple to drop Zithromia’s games on the basis of an arbitration award issued 

in Brazil. See generally Dkt. No. 1.

The case has some atypical features. To start, both parties are foreign entities. Zithromia 

is part of a business group called “FM Games” that has its principal place of business in the 

Mediterranean island of Cyprus, where it is also legally organized. Id. ¶ 7. Gazeus is a Brazilian 

company located in Rio de Janeiro. Id. ¶ 8. Neither party appears to have any physical presence 

in the United States. Their contacts with the United States, and with California and this judicial 

district, mainly take the form of internet game sales through Apple and other channels, with 

occasional visits to trade shows. 

Zithromia’s claims are not crystal clear. It appears to suggest that Apple acted in response 

to a “takedown” notice from Gazeus under the Digital Millennial Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 

which allows an aggrieved copyright owner to provide written notice under penalty of perjury to 

an internet service provider such as Apple that another entity is infringing or using its copyrighted 

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 63 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

materials without authorization. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). Zithromia does not say this in so many 

words in the complaint. Rather, it implies it by alleging a claim under Section 512(f) of the 

DMCA, which provides a cause of action against a person or entity who has knowingly and 

materially mispresented infringement in a takedown notice. Id. at § 512(f)(1); see Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 

43-49. Zithromia also alleges several common law claims related to the removal. It does not say 

what state law provides the rules for those claims. 

Immediately upon filing the complaint, Zithromia made an ex parte request for a TRO to 

bar Gazeus from trying to enforce the arbitration award. Dkt. No. 2. The request was denied for 

several reasons, including the failure to show a likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm, or 

success on the merits. Dkt. No. 16. Zithromia also filed a request for alternate service, which was 

denied because it had not shown that alternate service was warranted by the facts. Dkt. Nos. 3, 16. 

Service was eventually effected in March 2018. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22. 

Gazeus now contests personal jurisdiction in this Court under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and (2). Dkt. No. 32. It initially proposes that the Court should decline to hear 

the case at all as a matter of “prudential abstention” based on international comity. Id. at 4-5. The 

Court has some doubts that such a “voluntary forbearance” is appropriate at this stage of the 

litigation. Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 598 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). 

In any event, the question need not be decided now because the existence vel non of personal 

jurisdiction is a threshold matter that must be resolved before turning to other issues. Sinochem 

Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). 

The governing standards for Gazeus’s motion are straightforward. See Erickson v. 

Nebraska Mach. Co., Case No. 15-cv-01147 JD, 2015 WL 4089849 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 

2015). “In opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the 

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 

F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). If the court does not require an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff 

need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id. Uncontroverted allegations in 

the complaint must be taken as true, and “[c]onflicts between the parties over statements contained 

in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 63 Filed 12/05/18 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004); Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. On the other hand, the Court 

“may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.” 

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). 

Where, as here, no federal statute authorizes personal jurisdiction, the Court applies the 

law of the state in which it sits. Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir.

1998). California’s long-arm statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, is coextensive with the limits 

of the Constitution’s due process clause, so the Court need only ensure that that clause permits its 

jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800-01. 

Personal jurisdiction comes in two varieties, general and specific, Helicopteros Nacionales 

de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984), but Zithromia alleges only specific 

jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 35 at 8 n.8. To be subject to specific personal jurisdiction:

(1) the 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. Of the two tests stated in the first prong, purposeful direction is 

the one generally used in tort cases, like this one. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et 

L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). To establish purposeful 

direction, “the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly 

aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the 

forum state.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

To resolve the parties’ jurisdiction dispute, “a more satisfactory showing of the facts is 

necessary.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020 (internal quotation omitted). This is due in large part to a 

missing evidentiary link connecting Apple’s removal of Zithromia’s games to a takedown notice 

or other conduct undertaken by Gazeus in this district. Zithromia seeks to make a prima facie case 

for specific jurisdiction on general allegations such as Gazeus’s business dealings with Apple as 

an app provider and its “substantial and continuous contacts” with California through trade show 

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 63 Filed 12/05/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

appearances and internet sales to California residents. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 10-18; Dkt. No. 35 at 8-

9. The problem with these allegations is that they do not comport with the minimum contacts 

required for specific jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court has held, “for a court to exercise specific 

jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying 

controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” 

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (quoting Goodyear 

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). Simply alleging, as 

Zithromia does, that Gazeus has general business dealings with Apple in this district, or makes 

internet sales to residents here, is not a sufficient affiliation. Id. (corporation’s general 

“continuous activity” in forum or “relationship” with a third party there not enough for finding 

specific jurisdiction) (internal quotations omitted); see also Erickson, 2015 WL 4089849 at *4 

(general internet presence via a website not sufficient for personal jurisdiction). 

What is needed is a demonstration that the lawsuit arises out of Gazeus’s contacts with this

forum. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S.Ct. at 1780. Zithromia alleges subject matter jurisdiction on 

the basis of a federal question and a copyright dispute, Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 9, and so it needs to show 

what Gazeus did in this district, if anything, to give rise to Zithromia’s claim under Section 512(f) 

of the DMCA. Zithromia has not made that showing. It has not established that Gazeus sent a 

DMCA takedown notice to Apple, or had some other contact with Apple with respect to removing 

Zithromia’s games for copyright infringement. In the way of factual allegations, Zithromia says 

only that Apple “removed [its] applications pursuant to the Arbitration Order.” Id. ¶ 33. That 

might explain why Apple acted as it did, but it does not necessarily link Gazeus to a Section 512(f) 

claim arising in this forum. The wholly conclusory allegation in the body of the Section 512(f) 

cause of action is no substitute for pleading facts. Id. ¶ 44. 

While an argument could be made that this is enough to terminate the case for lack of 

personal jurisdiction, the Court has concluded that limited jurisdictional discovery would better 

serve the ends of justice. The facts about the dealings, if any, between Gazeus and Apple in 

connection with Zithromia’s games are uniquely in the possession of those entities, with no easy 

way for Zithromia to uncover them. Consequently, Zithromia will be permitted to serve discovery 

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 63 Filed 12/05/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

requests to Gazeus and third parties such as Apple that go solely to the jurisdictional issues 

discussed in this order. The Court emphasizes that the request should be targeted to evidence 

meeting the requirements for specific jurisdiction as discussed here. The discovery must be 

completed by March 1, 2019. The stay entered in Dkt. No. 34 otherwise remains in effect. 

After the limited discovery is completed, Zithromia should file an amended complaint 

alleging the facts establishing specific jurisdiction over Gazeus. The amended complaint should 

be filed by March 15, 2019. Gazeus may respond with a renewed motion to dismiss as 

appropriate. Zithromia’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 45, is terminated without 

prejudice subject to resubmission if the case goes forward after resolution of the personal 

jurisdiction issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 5, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 63 Filed 12/05/18 Page 5 of 5