Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01865/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01865-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

1

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE 

SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation, MEDIMPACT 

INTERNATINAL LLC, a California 

limited liability company, MEDIMPACT 

INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LTD., 

a Hong Kong company,

Plaintiff,

v.

IQVIA HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware 

corporation, IQVIA INC., a Connecticut 

corporation, IQVIA AG, a Swiss 

company, OMAR GHOSHEH, 

individually, and AMIT SADANA, 

individually,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1865-GPC(LL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DIMSISS FOR LACK 

OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST 

FOR JURISDICTIONAL 

DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS; AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM AS MOOT

[Dkt. Nos. 59, 60.]

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(5) for 

insufficient service of process, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. Nos. 

59, 60.) Oppositions were filed by Plaintiffs as well as replies by Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 32
2

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

67, 70, 76, 77.) A telephonic hearing was held on March 20, 2020. (Dkt. No. 90.) 

Jennifer Bennett, Esq; Randall Kay, Esq.; Nick Hodges, Esq.; and Alyssa Moscrop, Esq. 

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs and Bart Rankin, Esq. and Teresa Michaud, Esq. 

appeared on behalf of Defendants. (Id.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 

12(b)(2) with leave to amend, DENIES jurisdictional discovery, DENIES Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, and DENIES Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim as MOOT. 

Background

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiffs Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc.

(“MedImpact”), Medimpact International LLC (“MIL”), and MedImpact International 

Hong Kong Ltd. (“MI-HK”) (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Medimpact”) filed a Complaint 

against Defendants IQVIA Holdings, Inc. (“IQVIA Holdings”), IQVIA Inc., IQVIA AG, 

Omar Ghosheh (“Dr. Ghosheh”) and Amit Sadana (“Sadana”) (collectively 

“Defendants”) alleging twelve causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets 

under state and federal law and other claims. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) 

Plaintiff MedImpact was founded in San Diego, California, in 1989 and provides 

pharmacy benefit management (“PBM”) services to its clients. (Id. ¶ 10.) PBM manages 

prescription drug coverage for health plans,1and Medimpact has spent more than 30 

years and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in California developing, refining, and 

collating all the intellectual property in its proprietary PBM platform. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 23.) Its 

PBM platform includes real-time claims processing and adjudication, as well as business, 

financial, operational, technical and clinical know-how. (Id. ¶ 23.) MedImpact is the 

largest privately-held PBM provider in the United States, serving over 50 million 

members across 64,000 pharmacies. (Id. ¶ 10.) It partners with the nation’s finest health 

 

1 The PBM platform enables “patients and pharmacies to efficiently obtain insurance approvals for 

prescribed Medicines.” (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 7.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 32
3

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

plans, hospitals, self-funded employers, state and local governments, and universities, 

including the University of San Diego, to provide PBM services. (Id.) Plaintiff MIL is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of MedImpact and established and existing under the laws of 

California and began international business operations in 2011 and is active in the Middle 

East and Chinese markets. (Id. ¶ 11.) MI-HK is a private Hong Kong corporation, and is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of MIL, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of MedImpact. 

(Id. ¶ 12.) 

Seeking to build up its PBM platform globally, around 2010 or 2011, MedImpact 

formed MIL to expand its PBM services internationally, including the Middle East’s Gulf 

Region which had no PBM providers at the time. (Id. ¶ 21.) Around 2011, MIL began 

discussions with Dimensions to establish a joint venture due to its regulatory contacts and 

presence in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). (Id.) Dimensions is a United Arab 

Emirates company with offices in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Ramallah. (Dkt. No. 59-5, 

Ghosheh Decl. ¶ 2.) Since 2008, Dimensions has provided healthcare informatics and 

related services to customers in the Middle East. (Id.) At the time, Dimensions sold 

limited health IT software and integration products aimed primarily at pharmacy 

providers in the medical insurance market and did not have real-time online adjudication 

capabilities in the PBM market. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 21.) Defendant Dr. Omar 

Ghosheh, a resident of Dubai, UAE is the co-founder, officer and an employee of 

Dimensions. (Dkt. No. 59-5, Ghosheh Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2; Dkt. No. 1, Compl. 16.) 

On March 21, 2011, MIL and Dimensions began working together under a NonDisclosure Agreement (“NDA”), pursuant to which Dimensions agreed to strictly 

maintain the confidentiality of MedImpact’s confidential and proprietary trade secret 

information and not to use the information for any purpose other than the transaction 

contemplated in the NDA. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 22.) Under the NDA, MIL began 

sharing MedImpact’s closely guarded proprietary and trade secret information with 

Dimensions. (Id.) Subsequently, on February 1, 2012, MIL and Dimensions entered into 

a Joint Venture Agreement (“JV Agreement”), under which they agreed to establish 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 32
4

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

MedImpact Arabia (“MIA”) to provide PBM services to the Gulf Region. (Id.) The JV 

Agreement also required Dimensions to maintain the confidentiality of “confidential and 

proprietary information or trade secrets” and “not utilize the Confidential information for 

any purpose other than as necessary to conduct the Business pursuant to this Contract 

(including as contemplated by the Services and License Contract).” (Id.) On the same 

day, MIL and Dimensions also entered into a service level agreement (the “SLC”), with 

similar confidentiality provisions. (Id.) Additionally, by entering into the JV Agreement, 

Dimensions agreed that any business opportunity that arose under the agreement within 

the Territory would strictly belong to the joint venture. (Id.) The Territory included 

members of the Gulf Co-operation Council, Jordan, Lebanon, and any other country the 

parties to the JV Agreement agreed in writing. (Id.) 

On January 1, 2014, with the consent of Dimensions, Plaintiff MIL assigned its

rights and interest in the joint venture to Plaintiff MI-HK. (Id. ¶ 22.) For approximately 

eight years after the execution of the NDA, the JV Agreement, and SLC, through e-mail, 

phone calls and in person meetings/training, MedImpact’s San Diego employees taught 

Dimensions about all aspects of PBM. (Id. ¶ 24.) Throughout the JV with MIL, 

Dimensions obtained and used MedImpact’s trade secret information. (Id. ¶ 25.) 

MIA successfully secured many clients in the Territory, such as Oman Insurance 

Company (“Oman Insurance”), Vidal Health, AXA, Nextcare, Pentacare, Aafiya, Metlife, 

Alico MSH, Dubai Insurance, Aetna, and Al Buhaira Insurance Company. (Id. ¶ 27.) 

Out of its many clients, Oman Insurance was MIA’s largest customer, accounting for 

approximately 25% of MIA’s revenue. (Id.) 

From 2011 through 2016, MIA demonstrated continued growth with increasing 

revenues and customers year after year. (Id. ¶ 31.) Then, according to the Complaint, in 

February 2016, after having used MedImpact to succeed in the PBM market in the 

Middle-East Gulf region and having gained access to MedImpact’s proprietary and trade 

secret information, Dimensions agreed to be bought by IMS Health. (Id.) In October 

2016, IMS Health merged with Quintiles Transnational Holdings, Inc. creating 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 32
5

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

QuintilesIMS. (Id.) At that time, IMS Health and Quintiles were substantial global 

companies specializing in providing healthcare data, not PBM services, to pharmaceutical 

companies. (Id.) In November 2016, QuintilesIMS rebranded itself as IQVIA Holdings, 

Inc. (Id.) Defendant IQVIA Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

IQVIA Holdings “is a global provider of advanced analytics, technology solutions, 

healthcare data and contract research services to the life sciences industry to customers 

throughout the United States . . . and has one of the largest collections of healthcare 

information in the world, which includes more than 600 million comprehensive, 

longitudinal, non-identified patient records spanning sales, prescription and promotional 

data, medical claims, electronic medical records, genomics, and social media.” (Id.) 

Based on this data, IQVIA Holdings delivers information on over 85% of the world’s 

pharmaceuticals. (Id.) 

Defendant IQVIA, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware 

with its principal place of business in Danbury, Connecticut, and is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of IQVIA Holdings. Defendant IQVIA, Inc. has a location in San Diego, 

California. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant IQVIA AG is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IQVIA

Holdings, with its primary place of business in Switzerland. (Id. ¶ 15.) 

During the acquisition, IQVIA Holdings2represented to MedImpact’s officers and 

employees in San Diego that the acquisition would not affect the JV but IQVIA Holdings 

decided Dimensions should terminate the JV with MedImpact. (Id. ¶ 31.) 

Following Dimensions’ acquisition by IMS Health, Dimensions sold its own 

competing PBM platform called Adjudication Insurance Management System (“AIMS”). 

(Id. ¶ 32.) In contravention, Dr. Ghosheh states that Dimensions developed AIMS, in 

 

2 The Court notes that Plaintiffs interchangeably uses “IQVIA” to mean all Defendants (IQVIA 

Holdings, Inc., IQVIA, Inc. and IQVIA AG), (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. at 2) and/or IQVIA Holdings. (Id. ¶ 

31.) The Court is unable to distinguish what facts apply to which Defendant. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 32
6

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

2015, outside the United States before the acquisition of Dimensions and was developed 

without any involvement of any IQVIA AG or IQVIA Inc. employee. (Dkt. No. 59-5, 

Ghosheh Decl. ¶ 5.) 

The Complaint asserts that IQVIA along with Dimensions engaged in a scheme to 

target and steal MedImpact customers, to undermine and destroy the joint venture and to 

misappropriate MedImpact’s trade secrets for their benefit. (Id. ¶ 33.) In 2017, IQVIA 

and Dimensions stole the joint venture’s largest client Oman Insurance by offering 

Dimensions’ AIMS to replace MedImpact’s PBM product. (Id. ¶ 34.) Defendant Amit

Sadana was involved in the contract between Oman Insurance and Dimensions. (Id.) He 

is a board member of Dimensions and was appointed chairman of the board of MIA after 

Dimensions’ acquisition in February 2016. (Dkt. No. 59-8, Sadana Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Sadana is a resident of Dubai, UAE and is Senior Vice President and General Manager at 

IQVIA AG in Dubai overseeing Africa, Middle East and South Asia. (Dkt. No. 59-8, 

Sadana Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) He was never employed by IQVIA Holdings, Inc. or IQVIA Inc. 

(Id. ¶ 1.) On September 28, 2017, the Head of Medical and Life Claims at Oman 

Insurance admitted it was using AIMS to replace the PBM platform. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. 

¶ 34.) On October 1, 2017, Oman Insurance formally terminated its PBM agreement 

with MIA. (Id.) 

On July 23, 2017, Dimensions provided MedImpact with notice of termination of 

the JV Agreement. (Dkt. No. 59-5, Ghosheh Decl. ¶8.) On September 11, 2017, IQVIA 

representatives, including Yousef Ghosheh3and Alistair Grenfell4, a senior executive,

met with MedImpact representatives, including Dale Brown, President of MedImpact, in 

 

3 Yousef Ghosheh is distinct from Defendant Dr. Omar Ghosheh. 

4 Alistair Grenfell is a senior level employee at IQVIA. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs claim that 

Grenfell is identified as Leadership as the President of its North Europe, Middle East, Africa and South 

Asia and reports to the CEO of IQVIA Holdings, Inc.’s. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 13.) Defendants 

claim that Grenfell is currently an employee of IQVIA, Ltd as of November 1, 2019, and not IQVIA, 

Inc. or IQVIA Holdings, Inc. Therefore, Plaintiffs will likely seek leave to amend the complaint to add 

IQVIA, Ltd. (Id.; id., n. 5, 6.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 32
7

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

London, England to discuss the termination. (Dkt. Nos. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶ 24; Dkt. 

No. 1, Compl. ¶ 41.) At the meeting, Grenfell represented that IQVIA’s subsidiary,

Dimensions, was not going to be a competitor to MedImpact in the PBM market. (Id.) 

MedImpact also learned that in September 2017, Dimensions’ Yousef Ghosheh prepared 

a detailed analysis for Alistair Grenfell providing a customer-by-customer detailed 

analysis of MIA’s clients, its pricing and contract status and summarizing which JV 

customers Dimensions and IQVIA hoped to sway away from MIA’s PBM. (Dkt. No. 1, 

Compl. ¶ 37.) The day after the London meeting, there was a board meeting of the JV in 

Dubai with MedImpact representatives, including Brown, and representatives from 

IQVIA and Dimensions, including Sadana, Yousef Ghosheh and Dr. Ghosheh. (Id. ¶ 25.) 

When Brown asked about Oman Insurance, nobody from Dimensions/IQVIA informed 

MedImpact they had already signed an agreement with Oman Insurance in June 2017. 

(Id.) 

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants interfered with MIA’s other existing 

clients such as Vidal Health, ADNIC, Metlife, AXA, and Aafiya, and prospective 

relationships with Al Koot, GIG and Warba. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 42, 54.) Moreover, 

IQVIA is offering a competing PBM using MedImpact’s trade secrets and confidential 

information in the Palestine, Ghana, and Saudi Arabia markets. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.) As a 

result, Plaintiffs have suffered damages due to lost revenues from the loss of customers 

and irreparable injury by Defendants’ conduct in misappropriating Plaintiffs’ proprietary 

information and the subsequent loss to their business of existing and potential customers. 

(Id. ¶¶ 76, 78.) 

All Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 

12(b)(2). Defendants IQVIA, AG, Dr. Omar Ghosheh, and Amit Sadana additionally 

move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient process of service. Alternatively, 

the Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 

12(b)(6). 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 32
8

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Discussion

A. Legal Standard on Rule 12(b)(2) 

“When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff 

bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction.” In re Western States 

Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig. v. Oneok, Inc., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013). 

If the motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff 

need only make “a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to 

dismiss.” Bryton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 575 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 

2009). On a prima facie case, the court considers uncontroverted allegations in the 

complaint as true and the court resolves all contested facts in favor of the non-moving 

party. AT & T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). At 

the same time, however, the plaintiff cannot establish jurisdiction by alleging bare 

jurisdictionally-triggering facts without providing some evidence of their existence. 

Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977). 

“Where, as here, no federal statute authorizes personal jurisdiction, the district 

court applies the law of the state in which the court sits.” Marvix Photo, Inc. v. Brand 

Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). California’s longarm statute is “coextensive with the outer limits of due process under the state and federal 

constitutions, as those limits have been defined by the United States Supreme Court.” 

Republic Int’l Corp. v. Amco Eng’rs, Inc., 516 F.2d 161, 167 (9th Cir. 1976) (quoting 

Threlkeld v. Tucker, 496 F.2d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 1974)). As such, the Court need only

consider the requirements of due process. Due process requires that nonresident 

defendants have “minimum contact” with the forum state “such that the maintenance of 

the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe 

Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Personal jurisdiction can be either 

“general” or “specific.” See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 

408, 415-16 (1984). The Complaint alleges specific jurisdiction over all Defendants. 

(Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 61.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 32
9

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

“Personal jurisdiction must exist for each claim asserted against a defendant.” 

Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In this case, the parties solely analyze personal jurisdiction with respect to the 

misappropriation of trade secret claims.

5

 (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 176; Dkt. No. 59-1 at 

19.) The complaint alleges misappropriation of trade secrets under the California 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 

U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 69-98.) 

Under both federal and state misappropriation of trade secret claims, a plaintiff 

must allege that: “(1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant misappropriated 

the trade secret; and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.” Alta Devices, 

Inc. v. LG Elecs, Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 868, 877 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 

However, the DTSA applies only to “misappropriations that occur or continue to occur 

on or after its date of enactment on May 11, 2016.” Id. A trade secret misappropriation 

claim can be brought under the DTSA “if the trade secret is related to a product or service 

used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). 

The DTSA also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if (1) “the offender 

is a . . . organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State” or (2) “an 

act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 

1837(1-2).

 

5 Plaintiffs claim that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims if the Court has 

personal jurisdiction on one claim. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 17.) Under pendent personal jurisdiction, 

“a court may assert pendent personal jurisdiction over a defendant with respect to a claim for which 

there is no independent basis of personal jurisdiction so long as 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.” 

Action Embroidery Corp., 368 F.3d at 1180 (adopting doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction). 

Neither party has substantively argued the application of pendent personal jurisdiction. Nonetheless 

because the Court concludes it does not have personal jurisdiction over all Defendants, the Court need 

not address pendent personal jurisdiction. 

6 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 32
10

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Moreover, Plaintiffs must demonstrate personal jurisdiction over each defendant 

individually even for joint and several liability. Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. 

Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that, as a general rule, 

where a parent and a subsidiary are separate and distinct corporate entities, the presence 

of one. . . in a forum state may not be attributed to the other[.]”); Sher v. Johnson, 911 

F.2d 1357, 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Liability depends on the relationship between the 

plaintiff and the defendants and between the individual defendants; jurisdiction depends 

only upon each defendant’s relationship with the forum.”); see also Head v. Las Vegas 

Sands, LLC, 298 F. Supp. 3d 963, 973 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (“[A] plaintiff must submit 

evidence supporting personal jurisdiction over each defendant, and cannot simply lump 

them all together”) (citing Calder, 465 U.S. at 790) (“Each defendant’s contacts with the 

forum State must be assessed individually.”). 

As a threshold matter, the Court and Defendants note that the allegations in the 

Complaint collectively refers to the three named corporate defendants as “IQVIA” and 

does not separate out each Defendants’ actions in the alleged challenged conduct.7(Dkt. 

No. 1, Compl. at 2.) More importantly, Plaintiffs do not specifically isolate the 

jurisdictional facts amongst the different IQVIA entities and improperly lump IQVIA 

defendants together.

8

 Because it appears that Plaintiffs are primarily referencing IQVIA 

Holdings concerning the misappropriation of trade secrets, the Court considers whether it 

has personal jurisdiction over IQVIA Holdings. As such, the Court GRANTS 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants IQVIA 

AG and IQVIA, Inc. See Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837, 849 (N.D. Cal. 

 

7 The Complaint and Plaintiffs’ opposition merely describe the corporate structure of each IQVIA 

defendant but does not allege facts as to each entities’ involvement in the challenged conduct. (Dkt. No. 

1, Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14, 15; Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 13-15.) 

8

In fact, MedImpact admits that “its trade secrets have been misappropriated throughout IQVIA’s 

corporate family including, IQVIA AG, and IQVIA, Inc., and now IQVIA Ltd. of which IQVIA 

Holdings, Inc. is the parent.” (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 13 n. 5.) However, Plaintiffs must show that 

personal jurisdiction exists as to each corporate defendant. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

32
11

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

2018) (no personal jurisdiction over one defendant as complaint only referenced group 

defendants together). 

B. Specific Jurisdiction 

Specific jurisdiction exists when a case “aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the 

defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A., 466 

U.S. at 414 n. 8. The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over 

a nonresident defendant “focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, 

and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). Specific jurisdiction is 

limited to ruling on “issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that 

establishes jurisdiction.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S, 

915, 919 (2011) (citation omitted). “When there is no such connection, specific 

jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in 

the States.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, 137 S. Ct. 1771, 

1781 (2017). A court must look “to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, 

not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285. 

Therefore, “mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum.” 

Id. at 290. Rather, “an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the 

defendant has formed a contact with the forum State.” Id. Specifically, a court may 

exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant only where “the defendant's suit-related 

conduct” “create a substantial connection with the forum [s]tate.” Williams v. Yamaha 

Motor Co. Ltd., 851 F.3d 1015, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 

284-85). 

The Ninth Circuit conducts a three-prong test to determine whether a non-resident 

defendant is 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

32
12

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

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 v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 

Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The plaintiff bears the burden of 

satisfying the first two prongs of the test.” Id. If the plaintiff meets that burden, “the 

burden then shifts to the defendant to ‘present a compelling case’ that the exercise of 

jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 

U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985)).

1. Purposeful Direction

Under the first prong, the Ninth Circuit applies the purposeful direction test 

enunciated in Calder v. Jones

9

to claims sounding in tort. Schwarzenegger v. Fred 

Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2004); Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem 

Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017). Under the three-part Calder “effects” 

test to evaluate purposeful direction, Plaintiff must establish that the defendant allegedly 

“(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 Food Co. 

v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 

(1984)). “Failing to sufficiently plead any one of these three elements is fatal to 

Plaintiff’s attempt to show personal jurisdiction.” Rupert v. Bond, 68 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 

1163 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 

1124, 1128-29 (9th. Cir. 2010)). Here, the Court first addresses the second factor

whether each Defendants’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets was expressly aimed 

at California. 

/ / /

 

9 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

32
13

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

a. Expressly Aiming as to IQVIA Holdings, Inc.

IQVIA Holdings argues that Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the alleged 

acts giving rise to the litigation occurred in California or anywhere in the United States, 

and the only link between the facts and the forum is alleged injury to Plaintiffs, who are 

located in California. IQVIA Holdings explains that the gravamen of the Complaint 

alleges that it misappropriated Plaintiffs’ alleged trade secrets and confidential 

information for the purpose of providing PBM services “globally” yet, any action taken 

by the IQVIA Holdings, even if true, occurred outside California and in the Middle East. 

In response, Plaintiffs argue IQVIA Holdings expressly aimed its misappropriation of 

their trade secret knowing that it is located in California, it owned the PBM and related 

trade secrets, and IQVIA had substantial contacts with MedImpact in this forum. 

To determine whether the defendant expressly aims at the forum state, “[t]he 

proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but 

whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” 

Walden, 571 U.S. at 290. Thus, “mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient 

connection to the forum,” nor is defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s “’strong forum 

connections’ . . . combined” with the “foreseeable harm” the plaintiff suffered in the 

forum. Id. at 289-90. 

Prior to Walden, the Ninth Circuit held that a theory of “individualized targeting” 

was sufficient to satisfy the express aiming requirement. Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z 

Sporting Goods, Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 675 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Dole Foods Co., 303 

F.3d at 1111) (“’express aiming’ requirement is satisfied, and specific jurisdiction exists, 

‘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.’”). However, the Supreme 

Court in Walden made clear that the court must look to the “defendant’s ‘own contacts’ 

with the forum, not to the defendant’s knowledge of a plaintiff’s connections to a forum.” 

Axiom Foods, 874 F.3d at 1070 (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 289). In light of Walden, the 

Ninth Circuit explained that “[w]hile a theory of individualized targeting may remain 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

32
14

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

relevant to the minimum contacts inquiry, it will not, on its own, support the exercise of 

specific jurisdiction, absent compliance with what Walden requires.” Id. at 1070-71. 

Walden made clear that courts “must look to the defendant’s ‘own contacts’ with the 

forum, not to the defendant’s knowledge of a plaintiff’s connections to a forum.” Id. at 

1070. 

“Two principles animate the ‘defendant-focused’ inquiry.” Axiom, 874 F.3d at 

1068 (citing Walden, 571 U.S. at 285). “First, the relationship between the nonresident 

defendant, the forum, and the litigation ‘must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant 

himself’ creates with the forum State.’” Id. “Second, the minimum contacts analysis 

examines ‘the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant's 

contacts with persons who reside there.’” Id. “It follows that ‘a defendant’s relationship 

with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.’” 

Id.

Plaintiffs’ arguments on express aiming rest primarily on the “individualized 

targeting” theory of Washington Shoe that has been called into doubt by Axiom.

10

 Even 

though Plaintiffs argue that IQVIA Holdings had substantial contacts with MedImpact in 

California, the facts do not support their claim. As to IQVIA, formerly IMS Health, 

Plaintiffs assert that communications with IMS Health11 in 2015 create the contacts 

necessary to establish expressly aiming. In 2015, IMS Health reached out to MedImpact 

in San Diego about purchasing Dimensions. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 19.) According to 

 

10 For example, in their opposition, Plaintiffs argue “Defendants expressly aimed their misappropriation 

of MedImpact’s trade secrets and other intentional torts at this forum, knowing MedImpact is 

headquartered here, knowing MedImpact owned the PBM and the related trade secrets, and having 

substantial contacts with MedImpact in this forum.” (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 18.) In conclusion, 

Plaintiffs assert that “IQVIA knew that MedImpact was located in California and directed its tortious 

conduct at MedImpact, an entity established and doing business in California, and suffering the resulting 

harm in California.” (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 21.) By itself, individualized targeting may not support 

the exercise of specific jurisdiction over a defendant. See Axiom Foods, 874 F.3d at 1070-71. 

11 Defendants do not dispute that IMS Health was the predecessor of IQVIA Holdings and assumes the 

role of its successor IQVIA Holdings. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

32
15

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Dale Brown, President of MedImpact, in late 2015, while he was in San Diego, he had 

five to six telephone calls with IMS Health regarding its potential acquisition of 

Dimensions and sought consent from MedImpact for the acquisition. (Dkt. No. 67-5, 

Brown Decl. ¶ 14.) In addition, “IMS Health employees asked MedImpact employees 

due diligence type questions regarding the business, technology and finances of the JV.” 

(Id.) In December 2015, Brown received a follow-up email from Carlos Santos, the 

Director of Business Development at IMS Health, regarding its acquisition of 

Dimensions and IMS Health’s strategic intentions. (Id. ¶ 15.) Santos confirmed that IMS 

Health was interested in maintaining the JV. (Id.) Finally, Brown received another email 

later in connection with the acquisitions and post-acquisition regarding potential 

collaborations. (Id.) 

First of all, “[b]oth this court and the courts of California have concluded that 

ordinarily ‘use of the mails, telephone, or other international communications simply do 

not qualify as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protection of the [forum] 

state.’” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Peterson v. 

Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1262 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Next, on the question of specific jurisdiction, the Court must look at Defendants’ 

contacts as they relate to the challenged conduct giving rise to the misappropriation of 

trade secret causes of action. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A., 564 U.S. at 

919 (specific jurisdiction is limited to ruling on “issues deriving from, or connected with, 

the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.”); Picot, 780 F.3d at 1215 (challenged 

conduct had nothing to do with the forum itself). The Complaint provides facts about

communications, conduct and activities between Dimensions and Plaintiffs from the 

inception of the NDA and JV Agreement. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 21-30.) The 

Complaint states that the MIA “realized a rapid success”, (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 27), and

MedImpact and Dimensions had a “collaborative, productive relationship.” (Dkt. No. 67, 

Ps’ Opp. at 9.) The claim of misappropriation of trade secrets did not occur until IMS

Health, IQVIA’s predecessor, acquired Dimensions in February 2016. (Id.; Dkt. No. 1, 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

32
16

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Compl. ¶ 31.) In opposition, Plaintiffs do not challenge Defendants’ argument that the 

conduct giving rise to the lawsuit did not occur until IMS Health, IQVIA’s predecessor, 

purchased Dimensions in February 2016. (Dkt. No. 59-1, Ds’ Mot. at 9; Dkt. No. 1, 

Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs improperly conflate the conduct before and after the acquisition 

to support personal jurisdiction. However, any conduct, communications or activities, 

such as in-person meetings, emails or phone calls, between MIL and Dimensions prior to 

February 2016 are not relevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis. Therefore, the preacquisition communications in 2015, attested to by Brown, in support of Plaintiffs’ 

position, may potentially relate tangentially,

12 but do not relate directly to the challenged 

conduct of misappropriating trade secrets. By themselves, they do not support the 

expressly aiming factor.13 

The Complaint alleges that after the acquisition of Dimensions, IQVIA Holdings 

embarked on a scheme with Dimensions of misappropriating MedImpact’s proprietary 

information, using that information to create a competing product, AIMS, and then

targeted and stole MedImpact customers for its own benefit and undermined and 

destroyed the joint venture. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 33.) In describing how the 

misappropriation occurred by IQVIA Holdings, Plaintiffs explain that “MedImpact’s 

trade secrets, confidential information, and know-how flowed from Dimensions into the 

parent companies which continue to use that information today.” (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp.

at 10 (citing (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 44; Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 28-34)).) “IQVIA 

knew or should have known that the information provided to it by Dimensions, Dr. 

Ghosheh, and Mr. Sadana was taken from and belonged to MedImpact.” (Dkt. No. 1, 

 

12 Plaintiffs do not assert that Defendants had any ill intentions to misappropriate during these preacquisition communications. 

13 At the hearing, for the first time, Plaintiffs alleged that the pre-acquisition communications in late 

2015 were part of a scheme to misappropriate their trade secrets and that IMS Health misrepresented its 

interest in maintaining the JV. While the Court cannot rely on facts not presented in the Complaint or in 

Plaintiffs’ opposition, it can consider them for purposes of whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to 

amend the Complaint. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

32
17

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Compl. ¶ 75.) Therefore, by the time IQVIA Holdings allegedly accessed MediImpact’s 

trade secrets, they were already in the possession of Dimension. Based on the allegations 

in the Complaint, the conduct to support the alleged misappropriation of trade secret

occurred when Dimensions, an entity in the UAE, transferred Plaintiffs’ trade secret and 

confidential information to its parent company, IQVIA Holdings, an entity with a 

principal place of business in North Carolina. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 73, 75.) The Complaint admits 

that Dimensions, not IQVIA Holdings, acquired MedImpact’s trade secrets through the 

joint venture” and MedImpact’s San Diego employees taught Dimensions about all 

aspects of the PBM. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 40.) However, Dimensions is not a named Defendant in 

the Complaint. IQVIA Holdings obtained the trade secret from Dimensions and

converted the trade secret for its own use to enter the PBM market abroad. (Id. ¶¶ 32-37, 

41-47.) IQVIA Holdings knew the confidential information provided to it by 

Dimensions belonged to MedImpact and it encouraged Dimensions to share the 

information and IQVIA Holdings willingly accepted the information. (Id. ¶ 75.) These 

allegations do not present a prima facie case that IQVIA Holdings directed any conduct 

or created any meaningful contacts with California as it concerned the misappropriation 

of trade secrets. 

Instead, the facts show that the alleged misappropriation by IQVIA Holdings was 

conducted outside of California such as in the countries of Ghana and Saudi Arabia. (See 

Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 28-34.) Moreover, AIMS was a product created by 

Dimensions in 2015 by its employees located outside the United States. (Dkt. No. 1, 

Comp. ¶ 32.) Any conduct that Dimensions conspired with IQVIA to terminate the JV 

and seek to contract with the JV’s customers occurred in the JV Territory, not California. 

(Id. ¶¶ 33-37.) The September 11, 2017 meeting concerning the termination of the JV as 

well as the meeting between Yousef Ghosheh and Grenfell occurred in London, not in 

California. (Id.) 

Finally, the Complaint alleges IQVIA Holdings has a location in San Diego 

California and employs people in this forum, provides services within the forum, 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

32
18

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

conducts business and enters into agreements within the forum and its actions caused 

injury to MedImpact in this forum. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 62.) Defendants present a 

disputed declaration stating that IQVIA Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation with 

principal places of business in North Carolina and Connecticut. (Dkt. No. 59-2, Ashman 

Decl. ¶ 2.) IQVIA Holdings is purely a holding company, and it does not conduct any 

substantive business operations. (Id.) Further, IQVIA Holdings Inc. does not have any 

offices or employees in California or anywhere else. (Id.) On disputed facts, the Court is 

required to resolve the facts in favor of the non-moving party, yet, even if IQVIA 

Holdings has a location in San Diego, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that its offices 

and employees in San Diego misappropriated MedImpact’s trade secrets in San Diego. 

Plaintiffs’ citation to Philipe Charriol and Fighter’s Market are distinguishable. In 

Philippe Charriol Int'l Ltd. v. A'lor Int'l Ltd., Case No. 13cv1257-MMA(JLB), 2014 WL 

12284076, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 2014), the district court found that the purposeful 

direction factor had been met where the record showed that the counterdefendants 

“traveled to California, and frequently contacted [counterclaimant’s] personnel in 

California to conduct business via Skype videoconferencing, phone, email, and written 

communications. . . . Thus, unlike in Walden, [counterdefendants] have contacts with 

California beyond mere knowledge that [counterclaimant] has connections here.” Id. at 

*6. For instance, the written correspondence to the counterclaimant in California 

involved solicitation of confidential information about its business and the 

counterdefendant made numerous visits, phone calls and email correspondence over 25 

years. Id. at *4. The defendants’ contacts in Philippe Charriol were more substantial 

and directed than in this case and the communications themselves were the method of 

how the misappropriation occurred. Here, a representative of IQVIA Holdings never 

visited California, did not have extensive online communications or telephone or emails 

communications with MedImpact in California, and Plaintiffs have not pointed to any 

conduct of misappropriation through these pre-acquisition communications. Therefore, 

Philipe Charriol is not supportive of Plaintiffs’ position.

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

32
19

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Moreover, in Fighter’s Market, the court relied heavily on the now “outdated”

“individualized targeting” theory of Washington Shoe and held that the Plaintiff satisfied 

the “expressly aimed” requirement based on a prima facie showing that “Defendant 

intentionally infringed Plaintiff's trademarks, knowing that the Plaintiff is a resident of 

California and that the impact of infringement would be felt in California.” Fighter’s 

Market, Inc. v. Champion Courage LLC, 207 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1154 (S.D. Cal. 2016). 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Fighter’s Market, Inc. is misplaced. See Kellytoy 

Worldwide, Inc. v. Jay at Play Int’l Hong Kong Ltd., Case No. CV 19cv7831-AB(MRW), 

2019 WL 8064196, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) (plaintiff relied on outdated test of 

“individualized targeting as held in Washington Shoe and Fighter’s Mkt.) (citing Caracal 

Enters. LLC v. Surani, No. 16-cv-05073-RS, 2017 WL 446313, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

2, 2017 (observing that Washington Shoe and Fighter's Mkt. “have been cast into doubt 

by Walden and Picot [v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015)], which post-date 

Washington Shoe and require more than simply the plaintiff’s residence in the forum 

state.”) (internal citations omitted). 

Instead, the Court finds other post-Walden and post-Axiom cases supportive of 

IQVIA Holdings’ position. In E*Healthline.com, Inc. v. Pharmaniaga Berhad, No. 

18cv1069-MCE-EFB, 2018 WL 5296291 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2018), the plaintiff alleged 

misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information arising out of a 

Memorandum of Collaboration of a potential joint venture with the defendants, a

Malaysian corporation and a Saudi Arabia privately owned investment company to 

develop a pharmaceutical facility in Saudi Arabia. Id. at *1. The parties entered into 

non-disclosure agreements where they agreed that any dispute resolution would be in 

Singapore, and the majority of communications occurred over the phone or 

teleconference or via email. Id. One defendant repeatedly declined the plaintiffs’ request 

to meet in California and instead suggested meeting in London or Riyadh as more 

convenient. Id. Defendant Pharmaniaga agreed to one in-person meeting in California 

where it sent two employees to California for a weekend but no confidential information 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

32
20

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

was exchanged and no agreement was reached. Id. The parties also entered into a 

Memorandum of Collaboration in Germany providing for dispute resolution in London,

which included confidentiality obligations. Id. at *2. The joint venture eventually failed 

to get established. Id. Later, the two defendants announced a new joint venture to 

potentially construct and operate a pharmaceutical facility in Saudi Arabia and excluded

the plaintiff. Id. Eventually, the defendants did not build a pharmaceutical facility and 

no sales or revenues resulted. Id. The plaintiff filed suit alleging one cause of action for

misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information. Id. at *1.

As to specific jurisdiction, the court concluded, inter alia, that the expressly aiming 

factor was not met because the plaintiff reached out to the defendant in Malaysia, the 

defendant repeatedly declined to come to California for a meeting, and no confidential 

information was misappropriated at the one California meeting. Id. at *5. The court also 

noted there was no harm because the pharmaceutical facility in Saudi Arabia was never 

built. Id. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that defendants “purposely directed 

their tortious action at California and engag[ed] in [misappropriation of confidential 

information] targeted at a plaintiff whom Pharmaniaga and Modern knew to be a resident 

of California” because “while it is clear that Pharmaniaga knew [the plaintiff] was a 

business in California, Plaintiff has not put forth sufficient information to show that 

Defendant [ ] expressly aimed their conduct related to its misappropriation of confidential 

information claim at California.” Id. Similarly, in this case, Plaintiffs have not presented 

facts that IQVIA Holdings expressly aimed its misappropriation of trade secrets at 

California. 

Also persuasive is the case of Hempel v. Cydan Dev., Inc., Case No. 18cv00008-

MMD-CBC, 2018 WL 5777491 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2018), where the case was dismissed

for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendants’ challenged conduct had nothing 

to do with Nevada as the challenged conduct centered on the plaintiffs’ unilateral activity 

and activities outside of the state. Id. at *6. There, plaintiffs had developed proprietary 

information; the defendant reached out to the Nevada plaintiffs and entered into a 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

32
21

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Confidentiality Agreement which was discussed at an in-person meeting at defendant’s 

office in Massachusetts; and the agreement was signed electronically. Id. at *4. 

Defendants had no offices, no employees, no agents in Nevada and did not travel to 

Nevada to meet the plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs claimed that Nevada was the proper forum 

because substantial parts of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Nevada, they 

resided and were headquartered in the district, and “the situs of the confidential material

misappropriated by Defendants is with the [plaintiffs] who are domiciled in this 

[d]istrict.” Id. at *3. 

The Hempel court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim observing that the complaint and 

the opposition did not allege that any misappropriation occurred in Nevada. Id. at *6. 

The plaintiffs argued that the court should focus on the fact that they had compiled and 

maintained the information in Nevada but the court rejected the invitation concluding that 

to focus on the fact that the plaintiffs “compiled, maintained, and shared the alleged 

misappropriated information with [the defendant] is surely not a defendant-focused 

examination and would again allow Plaintiffs’ unilateral activity to drive the minimum 

contacts inquiry.” Id. The court also keyed in on facts related to the challenged conduct

and disregarded facts not related to the challenged conduct. Id. at *5 (“As an initial 

matter, Cydan's solicitation or initial contact via LinkedIn does not appear to itself be the 

challenged conduct, and the Confidentiality Agreement that ultimately resulted from such 

contact-given the joint venture did not materialize-was not executed in Nevada.”). 

Similarly, in this case, the thrust of Plaintiffs’ argument is that IQVIA Holdings 

knew MedImpact resided in California, that MedImpact’s trade secrets were in California 

and MedImpact suffered harm in California. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp at 18.) Such contacts

do not qualify as expressly aiming conduct under Walden. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have not demonstrated Defendant 

IQVIA Holdings expressly aimed its conduct to this forum. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

32
22

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

b. Expressly Aiming as to Dr. Omar Ghosheh

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations as to Dr. Ghosheh are not relevant to 

the misappropriation claims as many allegations relate to conduct or activity that 

occurred prior to the acquisition of Dimensions in February 2016. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 

31.) In response, Plaintiffs generally argue Dr. Ghosheh is subject to specific personal 

jurisdiction in California primarily because of his long-standing business relationship 

with MedImpact since the formation of the JV in 2011. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 7, 25, 65; 

Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.) They also claim that Dr. Ghosheh obtained access 

to MedImpact’s trade secrets through countless emails, phone calls and meetings with 

MedImpact employees in San Diego over many years. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 22-26, 61, 

65.) However, Plaintiffs do not address or dispute Defendants’ assertion, (Dkt. No. 59-1 

at 9), that the conduct, communications or activities between MIL and Dimensions that 

occurred from the inception of their relationship through February 2016, do not give rise 

to the causes of action asserted in this case. 

The Complaint avers, “[i]ndeed, after acquiring MedImpact’s joint venture partner 

Dimensions, Defendant IQVIA, Dimensions, Dr. Ghosheh, and Mr. Sadana joined in a 

targeted scheme to compete against MIA and MedImpact, steal MIA customers, meet 

with regulators and governments around the world, and disclose and use MedImpact

trade secrets to advance IQVIA’s interests and their own interests globally.” (Dkt. No. 1, 

Compl. ¶ 4.) Because of the trade secrets Dimensions acquired from MedImpact, it was 

able to create a competing product AIMS after its was acquired by IMS Health. (Id. ¶

32.) MedImpact claims that “beginning in at least mid-2017, and continuing to date, 

IQVIA, with the assistance of Dimensions, Dr. Ghosheh and Mr. Sadana, 

misappropriated MedImpact’s confidential and proprietary information and Trade Secrets 

and converted the same to its own use to enter the PBM market abroad.” (Id. ¶ 73.) The 

challenged conduct giving rise to the misappropriation of trade secret claims are based on 

Dr. Ghosheh, who resided in Dubai, sharing and using MedImpact’s trade secrets with 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

32
23

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

IQVIA defendants who are located outside of California. The acts that support the 

alleged misappropriation were not directed at this forum, 

Plaintiffs point to the following facts to support the “expressly aiming” factor. 

First, Plaintiffs claim Dr. Ghosheh entered into a joint venture with MedImpact, a 

California based company; was a board member of the joint venture of which MedImpact 

is a shareholder; and breached his fiduciary duty to that shareholder. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ 

Opp. at 20.) The initial formation of the joint venture in 2012 and being a board member 

do not relate to the challenged conduct; moreover, even if it was within the time period of 

the challenged conduct, these facts do not demonstrate expressly aimed conduct at 

California by Dr. Ghosheh. Next, Plaintiffs conclusorily claim that Dr. Ghosheh traveled 

to San Diego to meet with MedImpact employees “regarding the subject matter related to 

the subject matter of this litigation”, (id.; Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 65) but fails to provide 

more details about the trip. In response, Dr. Ghosheh states that he visited San Diego 

once to meet with Medimpact in 2013. (Dkt. No. 59-5, Ghosheh Decl. ¶ 13.) The visit 

lasted two days and they discussed MedImpact’s potential acquisition of Dimensions and 

no information was exchanged about the development of products and services for the 

JV. (Id.) Dr. Ghosheh admits he visited California one other time after 2013 that was 

entirely personal in nature and he did not meet with anyone from MedImpact or conduct 

any business in California. (Id. ¶ 14.) The one visit to California in 2013 did not concern 

facts to support a misappropriation claim. 

Plaintiffs further claim Dr. Ghosheh obtained MedImpact’s trade secrets from 

MedImpact employees in San Diego, sent mail addressed to MedImpact in San Diego, 

sent emails to MedImpact employees in San Diego, and conducted phone calls with 

MedImpact employees in San Diego. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 20; Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 

65; Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶ 12.) Again, Plaintiffs do not specify when these 

contacts occurred. From what is before the Court, it appears that most of these 

communications occurring during the initial period of the JV Agreement and prior to the 

acquisition of Dimensions in February 2016. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

32
24

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

As to the challenged conduct, the Complaint alleges, Dimensions, including, Dr. 

Ghosheh, with the help of IQVIA, including, Mr. Sadana, circumvented the contractual 

restrictions in the JV Agreement, the NDA and SLC by unlawfully disclosing and using 

MedImpact’s Trade Secrets and offered IQVIA PBM opportunities in the Territory and 

around the globe.” (Id. ¶ 40.) These allegations do not demonstrate that Dr. Ghosheh 

directed any challenged conduct to this forum. The September 2017 meeting where 

MedImpact met with representatives of IQVIA and Dimensions, including Dr. Ghosheh

to discuss Dimensions’ JV termination notice occurred in London, not San Diego. (Dkt. 

No. 1, Compl. ¶ 41; Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶ 24.) All other allegations concern Dr. 

Ghosheh’s partnering with companies in other countries to sell AIMS which occurred 

outside of California. (Id. ¶¶ 47, 54.) Further, Defendant Dr. Ghosheh is a resident of 

Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Dkt. No. 59-5, Ghosheh Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2; Dkt. No. 67-4, 

Brown Decl. ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiffs’ generalized allegation that Dr. Ghosheh had a long-standing relationship 

with MedImpact through the joint venture and obtained trade secrets over the many years 

during the JV, without providing specific dates, does not provide support for specific 

jurisdiction over Ghosheh in this forum. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to present a 

prima facie case that Dr. Ghosheh expressly aimed any misappropriation of trade secrets 

conduct at this forum. See Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 

2017) (“Any links to Arizona, which included Defendants' communications with 

Plaintiffs by telephone and email about the Tharaldson Litigation, occurred only because 

it happened to be where Plaintiffs resided.”); Professional’s Choice Sports Medicine 

Prods., Inc. v. Hegeman, No. 15-cv-2505-BAS(WVG), 2016 WL 1450704, at *4 (S.D. 

Cal. April 12, 2016) (“[A] plaintiff must point to contacts which demonstrate that the 

defendant ‘expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum.’”). 

c. Expressly Aiming as to Amit Sadana

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to assert facts to connect Sadana with 

California and, instead, rely on vague allegations of emails and phone calls with 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

32
25

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

individuals in California. The key claim against Sadana, as an executive of IQVIA, is his 

involvement in securing a contract between Dimensions and Oman Insurance which 

occurred outside of California, (see Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 34). Plaintiffs respond 

generally that Sadana had a business relationship and numerous business dealings with 

MedImpact including serving as Chairman of the Board of the JV, breaching his fiduciary 

duty to MedImpact, spearheading a potential collaboration with MedImpact and sending 

emails and participating in phone calls with MedImpact in San Diego. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ 

Opp. at 19-20 (citing Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 48, 61, 66; Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 

21-22).) 

According to Plaintiffs, since at least early 2016, Sadana had a relationship with 

MedImpact during the acquisition discussions. (Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶ 21.) After 

the acquisition, Sadana wanted to work with MedImpact to leverage PBM data in 

connection with Disease Management Programs. (Id.) Further, MedImpact sent and 

received many emails from Sadana as well as phone calls about the JV and 

collaborations. (Id.) Sadana also participated in telephonic board meetings with Brown 

who was in San Diego. (Id.) Defendant Sadana is a board member of MedImpact 

Arabia, and is a resident of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Id. ¶ 17.) These general 

allegations of Plaintiffs’ contact with Sadana do not demonstrate any conduct connecting 

him to San Diego in a meaningful way as it relates to the misappropriation of trade 

secrets. See Walden, 571 U.S. at 290. 

Similar to allegations concerning Dr. Ghosheh, Plaintiffs claim that IQVIA 

defendants, Dr. Ghosheh, Dimensions and Sadana joined in a targeted scheme to compete 

against MIA and MedImpact, to steal MIA customers, to meet with regulators and 

governments around the world, and to disclose and use MedImpact trade secrets to 

advance IQVIA’s interests and their own interests globally. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 4.) 

“Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana . . . have actively participated in the scheme to acquire and use 

MedImpact’s trade secrets and confidential information so that Dimensions and IQVIA 

can improperly compete against the joint venture and MedImpact.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendants 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

32
26

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana visited and specifically targeted MIA customers with the intent 

to steal them away from the joint venture by offering a competing PBM product. (Id.) 

Sadana is a resident of UAE and an employee of IQVIA, AG, a Swiss company with a 

branch in Dubai. (Dkt. No. 59-8, Sadana Decl. ¶ 1.) He has never been to California. 

(Id. ¶ 11.) Any challenged conduct occurred in the Middle East. 

The thrust of the allegations against Sadana was his involvement in executing a 

contract between Oman Insurance and Dimensions outside the JV agreement in 2017. 

(Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 34, 43, 49.) Sadana circumvented the contractual restrictions in 

the JV Agreement, the NDA and SLC by unlawfully disclosing and using MedImpact’s 

Trade Secrets and offered PBM opportunities in the Territory and around the globe. (Id.

¶ 40.) Finally, through the orchestrated efforts of Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana, Dimensions 

marketed its AIMS and related products and services over MIA’s PBM platform to 

MIA’s existing and prospective clients. (Id. ¶ 50.) Plaintiffs do not allege that Sadana’s 

conduct was aimed at this forum concerning his involvement in securing a contract 

between Oman Insurance and Dimensions. Plaintiffs make a general reference to 

Sadana’s contacts with MediImpact through phone calls or through emails but do not link 

them to the challenged conduct. (Dkt. No. 67-4, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 21, 22.) Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Sadana expressly aimed his alleged conduct of 

misappropriating trade secrets with this forum. 

Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied the expressly aiming element of the Calder

test, the Court need not address any of the other prongs because “[f]ailing to sufficiently 

plead any one of these three elements [from Calder] is fatal to Plaintiff's attempt to show 

personal jurisdiction.” Rupert v. Bond, 68 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

(citing Brayton Purcell LLP, 606 F.3d at 1128-29). 

Finally, because Plaintiffs have failed show that Defendants purposefully availed 

themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California, the Court need not 

address the second and third prongs of the specific jurisdiction analysis. See Picot, 780 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

32
27

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

F.3d at 1215 n. 2; see also Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Jay at Play Int’l Hong Kong Ltd., 

Case No. CV 19cv7831-AB(MRS), 2019 WL 8064196, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019).

In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. 

D. Leave to Amend

Where a motion to dismiss is granted, Aleave to amend should be granted >unless

the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged 

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.’” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 

957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture 

Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)). In other words, where leave to amend would 

be futile, the Court may deny leave to amend. See Desoto, 957 F.2d at 658; Schreiber, 

806 F.2d at 1401. 

At the hearing, Plaintiffs raised additional facts concerning a scheme to 

misappropriate their trade secrets by IMS Health, predecessor to IQVIA Holdings, 

starting in late 2015 as well as raising other facts not raised in the Complaint or in their 

opposition. Because Plaintiffs may be able to plead facts to assert personal jurisdiction 

over Defendants on whether the misappropriation of trade secrets was expressly aimed at 

this forum, leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint. 

E. Jurisdictional Discovery

Alternatively, in the event the Court concludes it does not have personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants, Plaintiffs request the Court to grant them leave to conduct 

jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 67, Ps’ Opp. at 26-27.) They argue that jurisdictional 

discovery is needed where IQVIA, a multi-national corporation, seeks to exploits its 

complicated corporate structure to avoid jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do not seek jurisdictional 

discovery as to facts surrounding Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana’s involvement in the alleged 

misappropriation of MedImpact’s trade secrets. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

32
28

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

The district court has discretion to allow or deny jurisdictional discovery and any

refusal to provide such discovery, “will not be reversed except upon the clearest showing 

that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining 

litigant. Discovery may be appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the 

question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the 

facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977)); see 

also Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for 

jurisdictional discovery regarding corporate alter ego liability). However, courts may 

deny a request for jurisdictional discovery “if it is clear that further discovery would not 

demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction,” Wells Fargo & Co. v. 

Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977), or when the request is 

“based on little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts,”

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). 

“[W]here a plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated 

and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants, the 

Court need not permit even limited discovery.” Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 

1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Terracom v. Valley Nat. Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A party seeking jurisdictional discovery 

must present at least a “colorable basis” that jurisdiction exists. Lang v. Morris, 823 F. 

Supp. 2d 966, 979 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“A plaintiff need only present a colorable basis for 

jurisdiction to obtain discovery, and a court abuses its discretion in denying discovery 

when it might well demonstrate jurisdictionally relevant facts.”) (internal citation and 

quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the IQVIA Defendants, whose corporate 

entity was created in November 2016 when QuintilesIMS was rebranded as IQVIA 

Holdings, had any contacts or directed any conduct related to the misappropriation of 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

32
29

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

trade secrets in California. Any discovery into the corporate structure of IQVIA 

Defendants will not assist the personal jurisdiction analysis because all of IQVIA 

Defendants’ challenged actions, post November 2016, occurred outside of California. 

Because any jurisdictional discovery on the IQVIA corporate defendants would be futile, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. 

F. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) - Insufficient Service of Process14

Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss the case against Dr. Ghosheh 

and Sadana for insufficient service of process. Plaintiffs respond that Dr. Ghosheh and 

Sadana were properly served. 

Rule 12(b)(5) allows a defendant to move to dismiss due to insufficient service of 

process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). “A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a 

defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Rule 4. Benny v. 

Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 

1347 (9th Cir. 1982)). “Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long 

as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 

967, 975 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Benny, 799 F.2d at 492). However, “[n]either actual 

notice, nor simply naming the person in the caption of the complaint, will subject 

defendants to personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial compliance with 

Rule 4.” Jackson, 682 F.2d at 1347 (internal citations omitted).

Substantial compliance with service of process despite deficiencies requires that: 

“(a) the party that had to be served personally received actual notice, (b) the defendant 

would suffer no prejudice from the defect in service, (c) there is a justifiable excuse for 

the failure to serve properly, and (d) the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his 

 

14 Defendants move to dismiss IQVIA AG for insufficient service of process. Plaintiffs oppose arguing 

IQVIA AG was properly served under the Hague Convention. Defendants did not reply to Plaintiffs’ 

argument. Accordingly, by failing to reply to Plaintiffs argument as to IQVIA AG, Defendants appear 

to have conceded to Plaintiffs’ argument that IQVIA AG was properly served. 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

32
30

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

complaint were dismissed.” In re 701 Mariposa Project, LLC, 514 B.R. 10, 17 (B.A.P. 

9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Whale v. United States, 792 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

As to serving an individual in a foreign country, Rule 4(f) provides,

(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides 

otherwise, an individual--other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a 

person whose waiver has been filed--may be served at a place not within any 

judicial district of the United States:

(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably 

calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention 

on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;

(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international 

agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is 

reasonably calculated to give notice:

(A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that 

country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;

(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or 

letter of request; or

(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:

(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to 

the individual personally; or

(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to 

the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or

(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court 

orders.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) (emphasis added). The UAE is not a party to the Hague Convention

or any other treaty concerning service of process, Color Switch LLC v. Fortafy Games 

DMCC, Case No. 18cv1419-DAD-JLT, 2018 WL 2298401, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 

2018) (United Arab Emirates is “not a party to The Hague Service Convention or any 

other treaty related to service of process”); therefore, Plaintiffs attempted to serve Dr. 

Ghosheh and Sadana by means as prescribed by UAE pursuant to “Cabinet Resolution 

No. (57) of 2018 Concerning the Executive Regulations of Federal Law No. (11) of 1992 

on the Civil Procedure Law.” (Dkt. No. 59-4, ElGazairly Decl., Ex. A at 40.) 

Here, the process server delivered a copy of the summons and complaint on 

October 7, 2019 on Sadana by dropping it off with a “Ms. Anushka (Office Receptionist 

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

32
31

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

at IQVIA)” at “11th Floor, Convention Tower, DWTC, Al Saada Street, Dubai, United 

Arab Emirates.” (Dkt. No. 16.) On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs’ process server dropped 

off the summons and complaint on “Ms. Anushka (Person in charge at Dimensions 

Healthcare LLC)” at “Convention Tower, Happiness Street, 11th Floor, Dubai World 

Trade Center, 183246 Dubai, United Arab Emirates.” (Dkt. No. 34.) It is to be noted 

that Dimensions and IQVIA AG both have the same address, (Dkt. No. 67-13, Jassim 

Decl. ¶ 5), and Ms. Anusha D’sa sits at the reception desk at the address of both 

Dimensions and IQVIA AG. (Dkt. No. 67-11, Farooq Decl. ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 67-13, Jassim 

Decl. ¶ 6.) 

Defendants claim insufficient service of process because they do not employ a 

person named Ms. Anushska, the person identified in the proof of service. They do

acknowledge that Anusha D’sa works as Sadana’s personal assistant but is not an 

employee of Dimensions so she cannot accept service on behalf of Dr. Ghosheh. Further, 

they contend that the proof of service is defective as to Dr. Ghosheh because it failed to 

include the “name, capacity and surname of the service recipient, and his/her signature, 

stamp or fingerprint in acknowledgement of receipt of service, or establishing his/her 

refusal to receive the service and the underlying reason for such refusal.” (Dkt. No. 59-4, 

ElGazairly Decl. ¶ 4.) As to Sadana, the proof of service is defective because it failed to 

include “the title, signature, seal or fingerprint” of the person who accepted service. (Id.) 

The Court concludes that despite these technical deficiencies, Plaintiffs substantially 

complied with service of process on Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana. 

Both Dr. Ghosheh and Sadana received actual notice of the complaint as they have 

retained counsel and filed motions to dismiss. Defendants do not deny that Ms. Anusha 

D’sa received the summons and complaint for both Dr. Gosheh and Sadana. Defendants 

have not articulated any prejudice from the defect in service. Therefore, the Court 

concludes that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with service of process on Dr. 

Ghosheh and Sadana and DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Henning v. Arya, 

Case No. 14cv979-RFB-GWF, 2016 WL 4055641, at *4 (D. Nev. July 26, 2016)

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

32
32

19cv1865-GPC(LL)

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

(denying motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process because plaintiff 

substantially complied with UAE law even though process server, inter alia, did not 

obtain the signature, seal or fingerprint of person served as required under UAE law). 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over all Defendants with leave to 

amend. Plaintiffs shall file a first amended complaint within 14 days of the filed date of 

this order. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. The 

Court further DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. 

As such, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as 

MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 91 Filed 03/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

32