Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04254/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04254-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SENAH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

XI'AN FORSTAR S&T CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04254-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S 

COUNTERCLAIM

[Re: ECF 73]

Plaintiff moves to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract. For the reasons 

below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant is a foreign corporation conducting intrastate business in 

California in violation of California Corporations Code § 2105, which bars a foreign corporation 

from “transact[ing] intrastate business [in California] without first obtaining from the Secretary of 

State a certificate of qualification.” Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a). Corporations Code § 2203 bars a 

corporation that conducts intrastate business without complying with the provisions of § 2105 

from maintaining “any action or proceeding upon any intrastate business so transacted” in any 

court in California. Cal. Corp. Code § 2203(c). Plaintiff therefore argues that Defendant cannot 

assert a counterclaim in this action because doing so would constitute “maintaining” an action in 

the courts of this state without being properly registered.1

Defendant makes three arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. First, it contends that 

 

1

This is the second motion brought by Plaintiff sounding in these two statutes. Previously, 

Plaintiff contended that Section 2203 prevented Defendant from even appearing to defend itself in 

this action. The Court did not address whether Defendant was in compliance with the statutes, 

finding that regardless of its compliance with the Corporations Code provisions at issue Defendant 

was able to defend against an action brought against it. See Order, ECF 44 at 2 (citing United 

Medical Management, Ltd. v. Gatto, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1732, 1739 (1996)). 

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 85 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

it is conducting interstate or foreign business, not intrastate business, when it sells goods to

California. Second, it contends that even if the Court found it to be conducting intrastate business, 

it would not be required to obtain a certificate of qualification because it is exempt from that 

requirement under Corporations Code § 191(c)(5). Third, it argues that the counterclaim asserted 

is a compulsory counterclaim, and that therefore the counterclaim is part of its defense to this suit, 

and that a party may defend itself in California courts regardless of its compliance with Section 

2105. The Court finds each of these arguments persuasive, and deals with each in turn. 

First and foremost, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant is engaged in transacting 

intrastate business. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that “the action arises out of the 

transaction of intrastate business by a foreign corporation.” United Sys. Of Ark. v. Stamison, 63 

Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1007 (1998). It has failed to do so. Defendant is a Chinese company that sells 

products to Plaintiff, a California corporation, which Plaintiff then resells. This is textbook foreign 

commerce. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant is actually engaged in intrastate commerce because Forstar 

has “duly appointed” Donald Hanes, Plaintiff’s President, as President of Forstar USA, and has 

advertised Plaintiff as Forstar’s United States location in promotional materials. See Mot. at 6. 

None of the evidence cited by Plaintiff supports this claim. In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that 

Forstar USA is nothing more than a fictitious name used by Senah. See Mot. at 6. It is hard to 

comprehend how Forstar could be alleged to be conducting intrastate commerce through a 

nonentity dba created by Plaintiff. 

Mr. Hanes’ declaration comes no closer to supporting this intrastate business argument. 

Mr. Hanes declares that the “prices, sales terms, and delivery dates” regarding products it resold

from Defendant were “set by [Mr. Hanes] as president of Forstar USA.” Hanes Decl., ECF 27-1 at 

5 (emphasis added). He further says that “in August, 2004 I was appointed ‘President and General 

Manager’ of the Forstar USA Office.” But the contract entered into between Plaintiff and 

Defendant in August 2004 states only that the agreement is between Defendant, located in China, 

and “Sources East, a subsidiary of Senah, Inc.,” a California corporation, and it does not appoint 

Mr. Hanes President of an entity called Forstar USA. See ECF 12-1 at 1-5. Plaintiff further 

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 85 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

presents as evidence Forstar marketing materials which identify an American office, located at the 

same address as Plaintiff’s office, as “FORSTAR/Sources East.” See ECF 31-1, 31-2, 31-4. This 

evidence, however, does not show that Mr. Hanes has been appointed head of a company or dba 

called Forstar USA. These documents actually controvert Plaintiff’s claim, because the American 

office is the only one lacking a “Forstar.com” email address, and instead has a “Senah.com” email 

address, further evidencing the separateness of the two entities. See ECF 31-5 at 1. 

Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant is transacting intrastate business in its dealings with 

Plaintiff under the contract. Defendant sells products to Plaintiff, a separate company, from its 

location in China to Plaintiff’s location in California. This is foreign commerce. Though this alone 

disposes of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court briefly addresses Defendant’s other two arguments, 

which serve as additional independent reasons to deny the motion to dismiss. 

Defendant argues that it is exempt from the qualification requirement under Section 191 of 

the Corporations Code. This section states that a “foreign corporation shall not be considered to be 

transacting intrastate business [] solely by reason of carrying on in this state any one or more of 

the following activities . . . (5) Effecting sales through independent contractors.” Cal. Corp. Code 

§ 191(c)(5). The plain language of the 2004 contract between the parties confirms Defendant’s 

argument, stating that “[t]he relationship between the parties hereto shall be that of independent 

contractors . . . . Under no circumstances shall either party . . . bind the other or represent the other 

as its agent in any way.” ECF 12-1 at § 11.12 (emphasis added). Plaintiff pleads in its SAC that 

Defendant hired it as a “sales representative,” which “bought and resold Forstar products” in a 

proscribed geographic area. SAC ¶ 8(a). This pleading, coupled with the plain language of the 

contract, shows that Defendant has “effect[ed] sales through [an] independent contractor” and as 

such, is exempt from the qualification requirement under Section 191(c)(5). 

Defendant’s third and final argument is that its counterclaim is compulsory, and therefore 

part of its defense against this litigation, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 requires it to 

state counterclaims arising out of the same subject or transaction of Plaintiff’s suit. See Opp. at 7; 

see also Mitchell v. CB Richard Ellis, 611 F.R.D. 1192, 1201 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Where a party has 

failed to plead a compulsory counterclaim, the claim is waived and the party is precluded by 

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 85 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 4
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

principles of res judicata from raising it again.”). Plaintiff does not substantively respond to 

Defendant’s argument in its Reply brief. 

The Court is unaware of any case to expressly consider this issue, but finds Defendant’s 

argument persuasive. Once Plaintiff filed suit regarding breach of the 2004 contractual agreement 

between the parties, Rule 13 demanded that Defendant assert any and all counterclaims against 

Plaintiff arising out of that same transaction, lest Plaintiff forever lose the right to bring those 

claims. As such, principles of fairness and equity support permitting a party that is able to defend 

itself from suit to also assert any compulsory counterclaims that arise from the same transaction or 

occurrence. Cf. Gatto, 49 Cal. App. 4th at 1739. 

Plaintiff has not met its burden to prove that Defendant is conducting intrastate business. In 

contrast, Defendant has produced ample evidence and argument to support its contention that it is 

conducting foreign and not intrastate business with regard to its contractual sales relationship with 

Plaintiff. Further, because Defendant’s counterclaim is compulsory, it should be able to assert it 

regardless of whether it would be permitted to maintain its own action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s 

motion is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04254-BLF Document 85 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 4