Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01529/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01529-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY W. HALL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

NELSON AIRCRAFT SALES, INC., )

a North Dakota corporation, )

JASON NELSON, an individual, )

PIETSCH AIRCRAFT RESTORATION )

AND REPAIR, INC., a North )

Dakota corporation, HOLLIE )

“RED” EWING, an individual, )

and DOES 1 through 100, )

)

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1529 REC LJO

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS

NELSON AIRCRAFT SALES,

INC., AND JASON NELSON’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 12(b)(2).

(Doc. 18) 

On March 6, 2006, the Court heard Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (the

“Motion”). Upon due consideration of the written and oral

arguments of the parties and the record herein, the Court DENIES

the Motion, as set forth herein.

I. Factual Background

Defendant Nelson Aircraft Sales, Inc. (“Nelson Aircraft”),

is a North Dakota corporation with its principal place of

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 19
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

Because the Complaint has been verified by Plaintiff, the 1

Court will treat it as if it were an affidavit with respect to

facts of which Plaintiff has personal knowledge. See, e.g.,

Leonard A. Feinberg, Inc. v. Cent. Asia Capital Corp., 936 F. Supp.

250, 255 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (deciding, for the purposes of determining

whether plaintiff had made a prima facie case for personal

jurisdiction, to “consider the verified Complaint a submission in

support of Plaintiff’s position” and to “afford it the same

consideration I would an affidavit”); Salomon Smith Barney v.

McDonnell, 201 F.R.D. 297, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

2

business in North Dakota. Defendant Jason Nelson (“Mr. Nelson”),

the President of Nelson Aircraft, is a citizen of North Dakota.

In or around April 2005, Nelson Aircraft and Mr. Nelson

(collectively “Seller”) placed a listing in “Trade-A-Plane,” a

national publication. The listing advertised a 1968 Cessna 177

(“the Aircraft”) that Seller wished to sell: “1968 177, LOW

TOTAL TIME A+E, 1600 TT. Very clean aircraft, no damage history,

no hail, paint-7, interior-9, looks/flies excellent, needs

nothing, $34,900. ND/(701)838-1998.” Compl. ¶ 17. 

1

Plaintiff Gary W. Hall (“Plaintiff”), a California resident,

called Seller to inquire about the Aircraft. During the course

of several telephone conversations, Seller made representations

to Plaintiff, including representing that the claims in the

“Trade-A-Plane” listing were true. Seller also claimed that the

Aircraft had “absolutely no damage” and that “all avionics were

in working condition.” Compl. ¶ 18. The parties eventually

entered an oral agreement under which Plaintiff would pay $34,900

for the Aircraft. Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff

transferred $5,000 to Seller’s bank account.

At Plaintiff’s request, Seller provided the names of

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 19
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

3

independent inspectors in North Dakota. Plaintiff hired one

inspector, Defendant Pietsch Aircraft Restoration and Repair,

Inc. (“Pietsch”), to inspect the Aircraft prior to completion of

the sale. Seller was not involved in negotiating, arranging, or

setting the price of this inspection.

Seller also provided at the request of Plaintiff the names

of deliverers who could transport the Aircraft to California. 

Defendant Hollie “Red” Ewing delivered the Aircraft to

California. Seller referred to Mr. Ewing as “my ferry pilot.” 

Hall Decl. ¶ 3. While Mr. Ewing was in California after

delivering the Aircraft, he told Plaintiff that he possessed

Seller’s credit card. Mr. Ewing represented to Plaintiff that

the Aircraft was in good condition, stating that it was “a sweet

thing” and “ran strong,” and that “all the avionics were good and

there was no damage to the plane.” Compl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff

believed that Mr. Ewing was acting as an agent of Seller.

After delivery, Seller called Plaintiff in response to

Plaintiff’s inquiry about documentation for the Aircraft. Seller

told Plaintiff that it had found more records. Seller then faxed

Plaintiff the weight and balance documents for the Aircraft and

mailed the microfiche records.

When Plaintiff took his first flight in the Aircraft on May

13, 2005, he discovered that its avionics were not operating. 

Compl. ¶ 28. On May 16, 2005, a third-party inspection of the

Aircraft revealed it to be in an “UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION.” Compl.

¶ 30. Entries in the Aircraft Log indicated the Aircraft had

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 19
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

According to the Aircraft Log, on April 24, 1980, the right- 2

hand main gear bolt, two ribs in the stabilator, and pop rivets in

the right-hand door post were replaced due to shear. Compl. ¶ 29.

The Log also revealed that on May 18, 1982, door damage was

repaired. Id. Microfiche reports on the Aircraft revealed that on

October 29, 1970, a Federal Aviation Agency Major Repair and

Alteration for identified thirty-five parts that had been installed

because of damage, including aft fuselage assembly, propeller, prop

bulkhead, lower and upper firewall, cabin door, and floor board.

Id.

Only Defendants Nelson Aircraft and Mr. Nelson bring this 3

Motion. 

4

previously suffered damage on multiple occasions. Compl. ¶ 29. 2

II. Procedural History

On November 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, seeking

to recover for breach of contract and on intentional and

negligent misrepresentation theories. On February 8, 2006,

Seller filed this Motion, along with the supporting Declaration

of Jason Nelson. On February 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed its 3

Opposition to the Motion and the supporting Declaration of Gary

W. Hall. Plaintiff claimed that specific jurisdiction was

appropriate because Seller had purposefully directed its

activities toward California. On February 24, 2006, Seller filed

a Reply.

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff has the burden to establish a court’s personal

jurisdiction over a defendant. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d

915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the district court rules on the

motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing, the

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 19
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

5

plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional

facts to withstand the motion. Id. This requires a plaintiff to

demonstrate facts that, if true, would support jurisdiction over

defendant. Id. “Although the plaintiff cannot ‘simply rest on

the bare allegations of its complaint,’ uncontroverted

allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.”

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th

Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Conflicts between facts

contained in the parties’ affidavits are resolved in Plaintiff’s

favor. AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588

(9th Cir. 1996). “If the Court denies a Rule 12(b)(2) motion

because a prima facie case has been shown, the movant can

nevertheless put the opposing party to its proof by continuing to

contest personal jurisdiction, either at a pretrial evidentiary

hearing or at the trial itself.” Ado Fin., AG v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp., 931 F. Supp. 711, 717 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062, 1064 n. 1 (9th

Cir. 1990)). Where facts bearing on jurisdiction are

“intertwined with the merits of the action” determination of

jurisdiction at trial is preferable. Id. at 714 (citing Data

Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285-86 n. 2

(9th Cir. 1977)).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction in California, a court must consider: (1) whether a

state statute potentially confers personal jurisdiction over the

nonresident defendant, and (2) whether the exercise of

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 19
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

Plaintiff does not contend that Seller is subject to general 4

jurisdiction in California based on “continuous and systematic”

contacts with the forum. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia

v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404

(1984). 

6

jurisdiction accords with federal constitutional principles of

due process. Congoleum Corp. v. DLW Aktiengesellschaft, 729 F.2d

1240 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285-86). 

California’s long-arm statute, California Civil Procedure Code

section 410.10, authorizes state and federal courts to exercise

personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the

Constitution. Congoleum Corp., 729 F.2d at 1241. 

Due process limitations on state power require that the

defendant have certain “minimum contacts” with the forum such

that haling it into court there “does not offend ‘traditional

notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” World-Wide

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S. Ct. 559,

62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,

326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). 

B. Specific Jurisdiction4

A defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction only when

each of three elements exist: (1) the “nonresident defendant

must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of

conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or

conduct, (2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or result from

the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of

jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 19
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

7

F.2d 617, 620-21 (9th Cir. 1991).

1. Purposeful Availment or Purposeful Direction

Courts use the phrase “purposeful availment” as shorthand to

refer to both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The purposeful availment prong

is satisfied where the nonresident defendant has “purposely

availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within

the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of

its laws” or has purposefully directed its activities toward the

forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.

Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985); Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303

F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts generally use a

purposeful availment analysis for suits sounding in contract and

purposeful direction analysis for suits sounding in tort. 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

a. Purposeful Availment 

The Court evaluates its jurisdiction over the contract

claims under a purposeful availment analysis. Plaintiff alleges

that Seller reached out to California by advertising in a

national publication, “Trade-A-Plane,” that it knew would reach

the forum. National advertising that appears in the forum is not

enough to establish a defendant’s purposeful availment of that

forum. See, e.g., Ind. Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Standard of

Lynn, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 743, 746 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Williams v.

Canon, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 376, 380 (C.D. Cal. 1977); Growden v.

Ed Bowlin & Assocs., Inc., 733 F.2d 1149, 1152 (5th Cir. 1984)

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 19
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

8

(holding that advertising an aircraft in “Trade-A-Plane” and

another national magazine was “insufficient, without more, to

constitute a ‘purposeful availment’ of” the forum). Courts have

considered national advertising as a factor in evaluating

personal jurisdiction, especially where it evinces an attempt to

serve a national market. See Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software,

Ltd., 775 F.2d 638, 640 (5th Cir. 1985) (“In this case Quaid

sought to serve a national market, as shown by its advertising in

seven national magazines.”).

Here, no evidence exists that Seller was trying to develop a

national market. Plaintiff has not alleged that Seller has made

any efforts, other than one national advertisement, to cultivate

business in California. It appears that Seller sought to sell

this single plane to whomever was willing to buy it, regardless

of where the buyer resided. That Plaintiff, a California

resident, happened to respond does not indicate that Seller

reached out to the forum.

Purposeful availment may also be found from the

circumstances surrounding the formation of a contract. The mere

existence of a contract between a defendant and a forum resident

does not automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts with

the forum. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478. To determine whether a

contract can establish the minimum contacts necessary for

personal jurisdiction, a court should consider “prior

negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the

parties’ actual course of dealing.” Id. at 479. Without the

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 19
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

9

contemplation of a future relationship, ordinary presale

communications do not establish purposeful availment. Gray & Co.

v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760-61 (9th Cir.

1990) (declining to find purposeful availment where telephone

negotiations and the exchange on an invoice and payment followed

plaintiff’s purchase inquiry).

Plaintiff and Seller did have telephone conversations prior

to the sale, though Plaintiff appears to have initiated each

conversation. Eventually, Defendant Ewing delivered the Aircraft

to California, allegedly as an agent of Seller. After delivery,

Seller, at Plaintiff’s request, faxed and mailed certain

Aircraft-related documents to Plaintiff in California. Plaintiff

points to no facts that indicate the parties contemplated

anything like a “carefully structured” or “continuing”

relationship. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 480; see also Sher v.

Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (defendant’s phone

calls and letters to and acceptance of payment from forum were

“normal incidents” of the business relationship that do not

evince “the deliberate creation of a ‘substantial connection’”

with the forum in the absence of “affirmative action to promote

business in the forum”). The circumstances of the contract

formation do not indicate that Seller availed itself of the

benefits of California law. Therefore, the purposeful availment

prong is not satisfied with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of

contract claim.

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 9 of 19
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

Seller contends that when the Supreme Court engaged in 5

purposeful direction analysis, it “did not simply do away with its

minimum contacts analysis in arriving at this conclusion.” Reply

5:26-28. Seller’s contention is literally true inasmuch as

purposeful direction is just an alternative analysis by which a

court can determine that minimum contacts exist. See Data Disc,

557 F.2d at 1288 (evaluating personal jurisdiction over a tort

claim based on material misrepresentations and holding that “[t]he

inducement of reliance in California is a sufficient act within

California to satisfy the requirement of minimum contacts where the

cause of action arises out of that inducement” (emphasis added)).

Seller points out in the context of the reasonableness analysis,

for instance, that “this action does not involve a tort or contract

that would implicate an ongoing relationship,” asserting in its

Reply that this restrictive phrase modifies “tort” as well as

“contract.” Mot. 11:22-23 (emphasis added); Reply 5:7-8. Seller

also contended, at oral argument, that the telephone

misrepresentation does not establish purposeful availment because

Plaintiff, not Seller, initiated the telephone call. It appears

that Seller’s implication is that personal jurisdiction may not

lie, even where a defendant has targeted harmful tortious activity

at the forum, if the defendant’s contacts with the forum are

nevertheless insubstantial in some way. Seller’s position is,

however, inconsistent with Ninth Circuit authority. See Dole, 303

F.3d at 1111 (“As we have previously recognized, Calder stands for

the proposition that purposeful availment is satisfied even by a

defendant ‘whose only “contact” with the forum state is the

“purposeful direction” of a foreign act having effect in the forum

state.’”). Furthermore, Seller’s invocation of Growden v. Ed

Bowlin & Assocs., Inc., 733 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1984), is

10

b. Purposeful Direction

Plaintiff contends that Seller committed a tort when it made

intentional misrepresentations in connection with the sale of the

Aircraft. Courts analyze the purposeful direction of intentional

torts under the “effects” test. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783,

104 S. Ct. 1482, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984). The effects test

dictates that the purposeful availment requirement is met where

defendant has “(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.” Dole, 303 5

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 10 of 19
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

inapposite to the purposeful direction issue. This is because the

court in that case engaged only in a traditional purposeful

availment discussion and did not address the effect of

intentionally tortious conduct that a defendant directs at the

forum. Id. at 1152.

11

F.3d at 1111.

i. Intentional Act

Plaintiff alleges Seller directed intentionally tortious

acts toward the forum that satisfy the first requirement. First,

Plaintiff points out that Defendants placed an advertisement in

“Trade-A-Plane,” a national publication that Plaintiff received

in California. Hall Decl. ¶ 2. The advertisement indicated that

the Aircraft was “[v]ery clean,” with “no damage history,” and

that it “looks/flies excellent” and “needs nothing.” Id. In a

telephone conversation on or about April 19, 2005, Seller

informed Plaintiff that the ad was “correct and true.” Compl.

¶ 18. Seller claimed that the Aircraft had “absolutely no

damage” and that “all avionics were in working condition.” Id. 

These representations induced Plaintiff to purchase the

Aircraft. Compl. ¶ 32. Plaintiff claims that Seller knew the

representations that it made were false. On May 13, 2005, when

Plaintiff took his first flight in the Aircraft, its avionics

were not operating. Compl. ¶ 28. On May 16, 2005, Sierra West

Airlines performed an annual inspection of the Aircraft and found

it to be in an “UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION.” Compl. ¶ 30. The

Aircraft Log indicated the Aircraft had previously suffered

damage on multiple occasions. Compl. ¶ 29.

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 11 of 19
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

12

Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that Seller’s

representations and omissions regarding the condition of the

Aircraft amount to fraud giving rise to the tort of deceit. See

Agosta v. Astor, 120 Cal. App. 4th 596, 603 (2004). Thus,

Plaintiff has met the first requirement of purposeful direction.

ii. Aimed at the Forum

Second, an intentional act is expressly aimed at the forum

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.’” Dole, 303 F.3d at 1111 (quoting

Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082,

1087 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a defendant’s alleged acts were

“‘performed for the very purpose of having their consequences

felt in the forum state,’” the express aiming requirement is met. 

Dole, 303 F.3d at 1112 (quoting Brainerd v. Governors of the

Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1989)). “The

inducement of reliance in California is a sufficient act within

California to satisfy the requirement of minimum contacts where

the cause of action arises out of that inducement.” Data Disc,

557 F.2d at 1288; see Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d

208, 212 (5th Cir. 1999) (purposeful availment requirement

satisfied where foreign attorney made fraudulent

misrepresentations to client in the forum in letters, faxes, and

phone calls).

Plaintiff’s allegation that Seller intentionally

misrepresented the airworthiness of the Aircraft to induce

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 12 of 19
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

13

Plaintiff to purchase it evinces conduct targeted at Plaintiff in

the forum. The Court rejects Seller’s argument that Plaintiff’s

initiation of the telephone call insulates Seller from personal

jurisdiction based on a tort directed at California. Seller does

not contend that it was unaware that Plaintiff was a California

resident when it made the alleged misrepresentations and

omissions. Rather, Seller states that “it is not a sufficient

basis for jurisdiction that Defendants knew that Plaintiff was in

California . . . .” Mot. 9:13-14. It is not clear when Seller

became aware that Plaintiff was a California resident and whether

this was before or after the telephone representations. In any

event, “concealment or nondisclosure” can support the tort of

deceit. See Agosta, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 603. Thus, Seller’s

failure to inform Plaintiff of the Aircraft’s defects was

tortious conduct targeted at California from the moment Seller

learned that Plaintiff resided here. The Court finds that

Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that Seller’s alleged

conduct was aimed at California.

iii. Harm in the Forum

The Ninth Circuit has not decided the degree of harm that

defendant must cause in the forum state to meet the effects test. 

Dole, 303 F.3d at 1112-13. A line of Ninth Circuit authority

requires that “the brunt of the harm” occur within the forum

state. See id. at 1112; Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11

F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1993). These cases appear to be in

tension with a Supreme Court holding that any significant amount

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 13 of 19
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

Because Seller’s representations over the telephone and 6

subsequent nondisclosure support personal jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s fraud claims, the Court need not decide whether the

representations in the “Trade-A-Plane” advertisement or Mr. Ewing’s

representations are also sufficient contacts to establish personal

jurisdiction.

14

of harm in the forum is sufficient. See Keeton v. Hustler

Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 772-73, 104 S. Ct. 1473, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790

(1984); Dole, 303 F.3d at 1113. Here, as in Dole, we need not

decide between these standards because under either standard, the

harm Plaintiff suffered in California is sufficient. See Dole,

303 F.3d at 1113. 

Plaintiff is a California resident. He contends that Seller

induced him to buy a plane that was not airworthy. Plaintiff

suffered all of the harm — spending money and receiving a poorly

functioning plane — in the forum state, where he resides. See

Dole, 303 F.3d at 1114 (forum resident that defendant induced to

approve an injurious transaction suffered harm in the forum). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient harm in

California to establish purposeful availment.6

2. Relationship Between Lawsuit and Defendant’s 

California Activities

The Ninth Circuit employs a “but for” test to determine

whether a claim arises from forum-related activities. Ballard v.

Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995). The question is

whether, but for Seller’s contacts with California, Plaintiff’s

claims would have arisen. The Court concludes that, but for

Seller’s alleged misrepresentations to Plaintiff in California,

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 14 of 19
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

15

his claim for deceit would not have arisen.

3. Reasonableness

The Ninth Circuit has listed seven factors to balance to

determine whether jurisdiction is reasonable: 

the extent of purposeful interjection, the

burden on the defendant to defend the suit in

the chosen forum, the extent of conflict with

the sovereignty of the defendant’s state, the

forum state’s interest in the dispute; the

most efficient forum for judicial resolution

of the dispute; the importance of the chosen

forum to the plaintiff’s interest in

convenient and effective relief; and the

existence of an alternative forum.

Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Navigation Co., 1 F.3d 848, 851

(9th Cir. 1993). Once a court has decided that the defendant has

minimum contacts with the forum, the defendant bears the burden

to “‘present a compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction

would, in fact, be unreasonable.” Id. at 851-52 (quoting Shute

v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 386 (9th Cir. 1990),

rev’d on other grounds, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed.

2d 622 (1991) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477)). 

a. Extent of Purposeful Interjection

As the Court held above, Plaintiff has made a prima facie

showing that Seller reached out to California and committed an

intentional tort. Seller’s alleged intentional misrepresentation

to Plaintiff of the airworthiness of the Aircraft shows

purposeful interjection in the forum. This factor weighs heavily

in favor of jurisdiction in California. 

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 15 of 19
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

16

b. Burden on Defendant

Seller claims that Defendants would face a great burden

litigating in California because they each live in North Dakota. 

In none of its briefing did Seller provide any explanation why

traveling from North Dakota to California to litigate creates a

great burden. At oral argument, Seller mentioned the difficulty

of transporting Defendants’ witnesses to California for trial. 

Each party would presumably be inconvenienced by litigation away

from its home court. Wherever this case is litigated, witnesses

and attorneys will have to travel for depositions and for trial. 

This factor does not weigh in favor of or against jurisdiction.

c. Sovereignty of Defendant’s State

The sovereignty factor is unimportant where both parties are

United States entities. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. In

such a case, choice of law rules can accommodate the social

policies of another state. Id. This factor does not weigh

against the reasonableness of jurisdiction here.

d. Forum State’s Interest

California has some interest in protecting residents who

contract with out-of-state parties to purchase goods. It also

has some interest in the safety of aircraft based here. North

Dakota has an interest in regulating those who sell aircraft

there and in enforcing the agreements they make. This factor

does not weigh against jurisdiction in California.

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 16 of 19
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

17

e. Most Efficient Resolution

Seller gave no reason in its briefing why litigation in

California would be less efficient than in North Dakota. At oral

argument, Seller contended for the first time that a North Dakota

forum would be more efficient because employees of Defendants,

who would likely be witnesses at trial, reside there. Other

witnesses, such as those who could testify to the condition of

the aircraft after delivery to California, would be

inconvenienced by a North Dakota forum. This factor does not

indicate that jurisdiction in California is unreasonable.

f. Convenient and Effective Relief for Plaintiff

It would be easier for Plaintiff to litigate in California,

closer to home. However, dismissing the case in favor of North

Dakota would not prevent Plaintiff from obtaining relief. This

factor does not weigh for or against a California forum.

g. Existence of Alternative Forum 

This diversity action could be brought in North Dakota,

where all Defendants reside. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). This

weighs slightly against jurisdiction in California.

h. Balancing the Factors

None of the factors weighs heavily against jurisdiction in

California. On the other hand, the alleged intentional acts of

Defendants amount to purposeful interjection that weighs heavily

in favor of jurisdiction. Defendants have not made a

“compelling” showing that California would be an unreasonable

forum to make personal jurisdiction inappropriate. See Amoco

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 17 of 19
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

18

Egypt, 1 F.3d at 851-52.

Accordingly, the Court holds that personal jurisdiction over

Seller is appropriate with respect to the intentional tort

claims. 

C. Pendent Personal Jurisdiction

Where a district court has jurisdiction over certain claims

against a party, but not others, it has discretion to exercise

pendent personal jurisdiction over the other claims. CE

Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.

2004) (district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction

over contract claim based on personal jurisdiction over

intentional tort claim). A court may require a party to defend a

claim that lacks an independent basis of personal jurisdiction if

it “‘arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts with a

claim in the same suit over which the court does have personal

jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Action Embroidery v. Atl.

Embroidery, 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Plaintiff has pleaded five causes of action against Seller:

(1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud and Deceit — Intentional

Misrepresentation of Fact; (3) Fraud and Deceit — Negligent

Misrepresentation of Fact; (4) Fraud and Deceit — Supression of

Fact; (5) Fraud and Deceit — Fraud in Sale of Personal Property. 

Seller’s alleged intentional acts toward the forum establish

personal jurisdiction over it for the intentional tort claims

only: the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action. The

Breach of Contract claim, the Negligent Misrepresentation claim,

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 18 of 19
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

19

and the other claims, however, arise out of a common nucleus of

fact. All claims concern communications and other conduct

surrounding Plaintiff’s purchase of the Aircraft. The

intentional tort claims, like the other claims, depend on what

representations Seller made about the Aircraft, whether the

representations were accurate, and the state of Aircraft when

delivered. Therefore, “[w]hether to exercise pendent personal

jurisdiction is committed to the sound discretion of the district

court.” CE Distrib., 380 F.3d at 1113.

Considerations of “judicial economy, avoidance of piecemeal

litigation, and overall convenience of the parties” are served by

retaining jurisdiction over the all of the claims against Seller. 

See Action Embroidery, 368 F.3d at 1181. Otherwise Plaintiff and

Seller could be faced with litigation in multiple fora, with

certain claims remaining before this Court and other claims

properly brought elsewhere. If the Court grants jurisdiction and

then the intentional tort claims fail as a matter of law, the

remaining claims may then be dismissed for lack of personal

jurisdiction. See Rosenberg v. Seattle Art Museum, 42 F. Supp.

2d 1029, 1038 (W.D. Wash. 1994). 

ACCORDINGLY, Seller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01529-NEW Document 33 Filed 03/09/06 Page 19 of 19