Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06475/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06475-3/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. 17-cv-06475-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 84

After the Court ordered discovery on the question of specific personal jurisdiction over 

defendant Gazeus in this district, Dkt. No. 63, plaintiff Zithromia filed an amended complaint, 

Dkt. No. 82. Zithromia has again failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that the 

Court has personal jurisdiction over Gazeus. Nothing in the amended complaint, or the record as a 

whole before the Court, establishes any ties between the claims against Gazeus and defendant’s

conduct in this forum. Consequently, Gazeus’s motion to dismiss is granted. Dkt. No. 84. 

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the record and will not repeat the detailed 

discussion of the facts and governing case law in the prior order. After questioning whether 

personal jurisdiction over Gazeus could be shown in this district, the Court gave Zithromia free 

rein to look for evidence establishing a connection between Zithromia’s claim of an improper

infringement notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), and 

Gazeus’s conduct in this forum. Dkt. No. 63 at 4-5. The discovery focused on Gazeus and nonparty Apple Inc. because Zithromia’s main case theory is that Gazeus got Apple to take down 

Zithromia’s games from its platform in response to an arbitration award in Brazil. See generally

Dkt. No. 82. Zithromia had more than 90 days to pursue the jurisdictional discovery, and did not 

ask to extend that time. In discovery dispute proceedings, the Court compelled Apple and Gazeus

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 96 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 2
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

to produce documents over their objections. Dkt. No. 76.

Even so, Zithromia’s work apparently did not yield anything to show a plausible basis for 

personal jurisdiction over Gazeus. If Gazeus had communicated or interacted with Apple in this 

district as Zithromia contends, the discovery should have uncovered at least some evidence in the 

form of a letter or email, meeting notes, travel records, or a host of other possibilities. But 

Zithromia has not proffered a single document or fact gleaned from discovery to support its 

allegation of personal jurisdiction. It again relies only on conclusory statements made on 

information and belief, see e.g., Dkt. No. 82 ¶¶ 24, 41, and other unsupported speculations about

alleged jurisdictional ties to this forum.

That will not do. In response to Gazeus’s jurisdiction challenge, Zithromia had the burden 

of demonstrating with facts, in a manner consistent with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior 

Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780-81 (2017), and the other cases discussed in the prior order, that 

personal jurisdiction was present. Dkt. No. 63 at 2-4; see also Sharpe v. Puritan’s Pride, Inc., No. 

16-cv-06717-JD, 2019 WL188658, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019). It has not done so, and its 

exclusive reliance on Gazeus’s general commercial conduct in California, or the foreseeability of 

alleged harm here, even if taken as true, do not cure this deficiency. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 

137 S. Ct. at 1778; McDonald v. Kiloo APS, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1041-42 (N.D. Cal. 2019). 

In light of the opportunity for discovery and the fact that Zithromia has already amended 

the complaint once, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Nguyen Gardner 

v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2016 WL 7888025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 

2016), aff’d, 715 F. App’x 737 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). The case is dismissed for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06475-JD Document 96 Filed 11/21/19 Page 2 of 2