Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04302/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04302-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 07/28/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PLASPRO GMBH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY GENS; and CHEMACOUSTIC 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-04302 RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This is a case about an industrial dryer. Plaintiff Plaspro GmbH (“Plaspro”) sued defendants 

Chemacoustic Technologies, Inc. ("CTI") and Timothy Gens (“Gens”), CTI’s president, in state 

court for breach of contract and fraud stemming from defendants’ alleged failure to deliver a 

cleaner/dryer system pursuant to the parties’ contract. Defendants removed the case to this Court 

and, on January 13, 2010, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient 

process and insufficient service of process pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 

12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), respectively. On April 12, 2010 the Court authorized the parties to conduct 

limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The parties have since done so, and have 

submitted supplemental briefing. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is denied. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 12
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Plaspro, an international distribution and representation company serving the semiconductor 

industry, alleges that it brokered the purchase of a cleaner/dryer system from defendants on 

December 20, 2007, that it paid $108,500.00 as a down payment, and that defendants failed to 

deliver the dryer to PlasticLogic GmbH, the third-party end user, by May 2008 as promised. 

Plaspro sued Gens and CTI on October 23, 2008 in Santa Clara County Superior Court for breach of 

contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, fraud, and rescission based on fraud. On February 

18, 2009, Gens filed a motion to quash service of summons in the state court action on behalf of 

himself and CTI. The state court granted the motion to quash as to Gens and denied it as to CTI. 

RJN in Opp’n Exh. 5.1 Plaspro later obtained an order for publication of summons from the Santa 

Clara County Superior Court, and published summons in the San Jose Mercury News. Id. 

Defendants again filed a motion to quash service of summons, and on August 25, 2009 the motion 

was denied in its entirety. Id., Exh. 3.2

CTI was originally incorporated in Nevada on November 17, 2003, but has since had its 

corporate status revoked. Decl. of Harris ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exh. A. According to 

Jagjit Ratra, a Vice President of Engineering for CTI from March 2004 through July 2008 who was 

involved in the design, manufacture and delivery of the cleaner/dryer system ordered by Plaspro, 

CTI conducted a significant portion of its operations in California. Decl. of Ratra ISO Supplemental 

Br. in Opp’n at ¶¶ 4-7. Ratra testified that he was CTI’s only employee, and that he generally 

 

1

 Plaspro asks the Court to take judicial notice of several pleadings and orders filed in the state court 

action, including those relating to the motion to quash service. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201(b), the Court takes judicial notice of the following court filings: (1) Order re: Motion 

to Quash Service of Summons; Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Notice of the Writ of 

Attachment; Motion for Sanctions Under CCP § 128.7 issued by the Superior Court of California, 

County of Santa Clara on August 26, 2009 in case number 1-08-CV-126129; (2) Order re: Motion to 

Quash Service of Summons Notice of the Writ of Attachment issued by the Superior Court of 

California, County of Santa Clara on March 13, 2009 in case number 1-08-CV-126129; (3) Notice 

of and Motion by Defendants Timothy Gens and Chemacoustic Technologies, Inc. to Quash Service 

of Summons filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara on January 23, 2008 in 

case number 1-08-CV-126129; (4) Complaint of Plaintiffs Timothy and Laura Gens in case number 

CIV464453 filed in Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo on July 13, 2007; and (5) 

Complaint of Timothy Gens filed in case number 107CV090225 in Superior Court of California, 

County of Santa Clara on July 19, 2007. As to any other requests, the motion is denied. 2

The state court evaluated defendants’ motion to quash service based upon the same extensive 

record that has been presented here. Relying on this record, the state court deemed Plaspro’s 

publication of summons appropriate and denied the motion to quash. Similarly, Plaspro’s process 

and service of process satisfied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants motion to 

dismiss is denied to the extent it is based upon Rule 12(b)(4) or Rule 12(b)(5). 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 12
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

worked for CTI out of one of three locations; his home in Campbell, California, the Gens home in 

Palo Alto, California,3 or the Pro Sys, Inc. offices in Campbell, California. Id. at ¶ 4. A copy of a 

2006 W-2 Ratra received while working for CTI lists the company’s address as P.O. Box 61029, 

Palo Alto, CA 94306. Id, Exh. A. Ratra further acknowledged that his CTI business cards listed the 

company’s address as “Chemacoustic Technologies, Inc., Silicon Valley Research Center, 4546 B10 

El Camino Real, Suite 385, Los Altos, CA 94022,” and that the additional company address in 

Incline Village, Nevada was simply a mail forwarding address. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. In his declaration, 

Gens claims that Ratra was an independent contractor who stopped working for CTI in May of 

2008, and who represented less than 8% of CTI’s workforce. Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental 

Mem. at ¶¶ 14, 24. Gens also testified that CTI had no employees in California between 2007 and 

2010 and that CTI employed three independent contractor engineers through the end of 2009 at its 

Nevada location in Las Vegas. Id. at ¶¶ 13, 19. Gens, however, provides no address in Las Vegas 

nor any names or additional evidence for the three independent contractors. Gens goes on in his 

declaration to maintain that Ratra never worked out of the Palo Alto house, and that his “access to 

the property was limited to the assembly of product in a remote studio on the property in December 

of 2007.” Id. at ¶ 25. 

Ratra also testified that, during the time he worked for CTI, the company built all of its 

products and tools, including the cleaner/dryer ordered by Plaspro in 2007, in California. Decl. of 

Ratra ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n at ¶ 5. Additionally, according to Ratra, CTI purchased 

materials from numerous suppliers in California, and Gens and Ratra regularly met with clients and 

potential customers in this state. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6. Ratra lists eleven California vendors from whom 

CTI allegedly purchased parts and materials. Id. at ¶ 6. Ratra also lists a number of meetings in 

California that he and Gens had with individuals involved in the Plaspro agreement; prior to 2007 

they met with Maurice Ford, Plaspro’s owner and president, at the Pro Sys office to discuss an 

earlier transaction, and in late 2007 they met with Peter Kember, a PlasticLogic representative, at a 

 

3

Gens states that his wife, Laura Gens, is the sole owner of the property in Palo Alto, CA since 

2006. Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental Mem. at ¶ 23. During his deposition, Gens had some 

difficulty remembering whether he had been to the Palo Alto residence the week prior, but recalled 

that he had been there as recently as February 22, 2010. Decl. of Harris ISO Supplemental Br. in 

Opp’n, Exh. E. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 12
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

hotel in San Francisco to review conceptual designs for the cleaner/dryer.4 Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. In fact, 

according to Ratra’s testimony, all communications regarding the Plaspro order took place in 

California, as did all of the design work that was done for the cleaner/dryer. Id. at ¶ 8. In his 

declaration, Gens disputes Ratra’s testimony, and maintains that less than 5% of CTI’s sales were 

from California vendors in 2007, that it had no offices at Pro Sys, that it performed no 

demonstrations in California from 2008-2010, and that it manufactured its tools “in the states of OK, 

IL, NV, WI, and WA.” Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental Mem. at ¶¶ 4, 9, 20, 21. Gens does 

not, however, dispute that he met with Ford at the Semicon West convention, that he met with 

Kember in San Francisco, or that the design work and negotiations for the cleaner/dryer took place 

in California. 

Other general allegations that Plaspro makes regarding CTI’s contacts with California 

include: that CTI advertised on its website, business cards, customer invoices, email signature 

blocks and other miscellaneous documentation that it had a research center located in Los Altos; that 

in his capacity at CTI, Gens advertised and received phone calls to numbers with area codes 

assigned to geographic areas that include Los Altos and Palo Alto; and that, other than being 

originally incorporated in Nevada and maintaining a bank account at the Wells Fargo Bank in 

Incline Village, CTI conducted all its substantive activities in and around Palo Alto, Los Altos, and 

Campbell, California. Decl. of Ratra ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n at ¶¶ 2-4; Decl. of Ford ISO 

Supplemental Br. in Opp’n at ¶¶ 14, 15. Gens testifies in his declaration that CTI’s website is 

passive, that it never advertised in California, that it has never designated an agent for service of 

process in this state, that it has never been incorporated or licensed in California, and that it 

maintains no bank accounts here. Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental Mem. at ¶¶ 3-9. 

As to Gens specifically, Plaspro alleges that he has had substantial, continuous, and 

systematic contact with California dating back to at least 1994. In support of this, Plaspro maintains 

that Gens resided in California from 1994 until at least 2006, when he transferred the ownership of 

his Palo Alto home to his wife. Decl. of Harris ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exh. E. Gens does 

 

4

 Ford testifies that he met Gens at the Semicon West convention at the Moscone Center in San 

Francisco in July 2008, at which point Gens confirmed that he would be unable to deliver the 

cleaner/dryer as promised. Decl. of Ford ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n at ¶ 4. Ford also testifies 

that Gens sent him emails discussing the possibility of demonstrating the product in California. Id. at ¶ 13. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 12
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

not dispute this fact. Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental Mem. at ¶ 23. During this time, Plaspro 

maintains, Gens consistently worked in California; he was employed with various law firms from 

1994 until founding CTI in 2003, and from sometime after 2006 until around January 2009 worked 

in Mountain View, California at Vello Corporation as a Vice President of Corporate Development. 

Decl. of Harris ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exh. C.5

 Additionally, Plaspro avers that Gens has 

a long history through to the present of availing himself of the judicial system in California. 

According to court filings submitted for judicial notice by Plaspro, as of December 2007, Gens was 

a plaintiff in at least two open cases in California; one still pending in Santa Clara County Superior 

Court that was filed on July 19, 2007, and a San Mateo County Superior Court action that was filed 

on July 13, 2007 and closed on March 26, 2010. RJN ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exhs. I, J. 

Gens has represented himself in pro per in both these cases, and in each complaint alleged that he 

resided in Santa Clara County, California as of the date of filing. Id. Lastly, Plaspro avers that 

Gens, who is a member of the Illinois Bar Association, lists his registered business address with the 

Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois as Palo Alto, 

California, that he has a valid California driver’s license, and that he and Ratra are co-inventors of a 

patent application that lists Gens’ correspondence address as Palo Alto, California. Decl. of Harris 

ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exhs. D, E; Decl. of Ratra ISO Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exh. C. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A defendant may properly bring a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Personal jurisdiction can arise from two separate premises, commonly 

known as general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. “General jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction to 

adjudicate claims that do not arise from the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Thus, if a 

defendant is amendable to general jurisdiction in a state, the state may exercise jurisdiction over the 

defendant based on any claim, including claims unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the state.” 

Coremetrics, Inc. v. Atomic Park.com, LLC, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citations 

omitted); see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). 

“The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is ‘fairly high,’ and requires that the defendant’s 

 

5

 According to the motion to quash service of summons filed by defendants in Santa Clara County 

Superior Court, Gens was laid off from Vello Corporation at the end of September 2008. RJN ISO 

Supplemental Br. in Opp’n, Exh. P. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 12
6 

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

For the Northern District of California 

contacts be of the sort that approximate physical presence.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta 

Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070, 

1073 (9th Cir. 1986)). In determining general jurisdiction, courts look for “substantial” or 

“continuous and systematic contacts” with the forum state, and take into account “whether the 

defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state’s markets, 

designates an agent for service of process, holds licenses, or is incorporated there.” Id. The focus is 

on the “economic reality of [a defendant’s] activities rather than a mechanical checklist,” Gates 

Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted), and “[l]ongevity, 

continuity, volume, economic impact, physical presence, and integration into the state's regulatory 

or economic markets are among the indicia of such a presence.” Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 

Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the assertion of general jurisdiction, even 

where continuous and systematic contacts exist, must be reasonable. See Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. 

Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., 1 F.3d 848, 852-853 (9th Cir. 1993) 

Where a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are insufficient to warrant general 

jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction may exist if the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with 

the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and 

justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1946). This analysis looks at the relationship 

between the forum and the claim, and in the Ninth Circuit involves a three-part test. See Ballard v. 

Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). The first step is to determine whether the nonresident 

defendant has done “some act or consummate[d] some transaction with the forum[,] or perform[ed] 

some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the 

forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum.” Id., 65 F.3d at 1498 (quoting 

Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1995)). The second step asks 

whether “the claim [is] one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related 

activities.” Id. The final inquiry is to determine if the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Id. 

Reasonableness, and fairness, requires that a court exercise jurisdiction only if the defendant's 

actions in the forum are such that “he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” 

World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 6 of 12
7 

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

For the Northern District of California 

If personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's 

jurisdiction over the defendant. See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). 

However, if a court rules on a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without holding 

an evidentiary hearing, such as here, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of 

jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Id. A prima facie showing requires only that the plaintiff present 

facts which, if true, establish jurisdiction. Id. (citing Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1498). Moreover, 

“conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in [plaintiff’s] favor 

for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists.” Id. (citing 

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

IV. ANALYSIS 

A. Specific Jurisdiction

Applying the three-part test from Ballard, the Court first looks at whether CTI and Gens 

purposefully availed themselves of “the benefit and privilege of conducting activities” in California. 

65 F.3d at 1498. Determining whether a defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum requires 

a “qualitative evaluation of the defendant's contact with the forum state.” Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 

1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987). As long as a defendant’s contact creates a “substantial connection” with 

the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 

462, 476 (1985). In evaluating whether the existence of a contract establishes purposeful availment, 

a court must examine the circumstances surrounding the contract, including “prior negotiations[,] 

contemplated future consequences..., the terms of the contract, and the parties’ actual course of 

dealing.” Id. at 479. Evidence of the defendant's actions in the forum, such as negotiating, 

executing or performing a contract there, frequently qualify as an invocation of the forum’s benefits 

and protections. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801, 802 (9th cir. 

2004). 

Here, based on the evidence submitted with the supplemental briefing, defendants at least 

partly negotiated, executed, and performed the contract in connection with the Plaspro purchase 

order in California. Indeed, according to Ratra, the employee closest to the transaction, all 

communications regarding the Plaspro order took place in California, as did all of the design work 

that was done for the cleaner/dryer: Gens and Ratra met with Ford in Campbell, California to 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 7 of 12
8 

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

For the Northern District of California 

discuss CTI products; Gens and Ratra met with Kember in San Francisco to review conceptual 

designs for the cleaner/dryer; Gens discussed with Ford the possibility of demonstrating the product 

in California; and Gens ultimately informed Ford that CTI would be unable to deliver the 

cleaner/dryer while the two were at the Semicon West convention in San Francisco. Although Gens 

submits a declaration that purports to contradict certain representations made by Plaspro, the Court 

need not parse out Gens’ declaration to determine which portions conflict with the evidence 

submitted by plaintiff, or to evaluate whether Gens’ statements reveal any inconsistencies, because 

conflicts between the facts presented by the parties must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor. See 

Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d at 588.6 Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable 

to plaintiff, CTI and Gens both availed themselves of this forum by negotiating a contract whose 

performance was centered in California. In other words, defendants’ actions created a substantial 

connection with California, and Plaspro has satisfied the first part of the Ballard test. 

Applying the second step in the Ballard analysis, it is without question that Plaspro’s lawsuit 

arose out of the defendants’ forum-related activities. 65 F.3d at 1498. Indeed, Plaspro is suing 

based upon the alleged breach of an agreement that was negotiated in California for a product that 

was to be built and tested here. Again, resolving any conflicts in the evidence in plaintiff’s favor as 

required, testimony from Ford and Ratra shows that this action arose out of the very activities that 

established minimum contacts; CTI’s initial contract negotiations, products consultations, design 

work and manufacture all either happened, or in the case of the latter, were anticipated to happen in 

California. 

Finally, as to the third prong of the Ballard test, once a plaintiff establishes that a defendant 

has purposefully availed itself of the forum and that the action arose out of these forum-related 

activities, the defendant bears the burden of showing that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would 

still be unreasonable. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d at 802; see also Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 

942 F.2d 617, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Once purposeful availment has been established, the forum's 

 

6

 For instance, Gens says in his declaration that CTI “never sold any product for use in California,” 

that it had no offices “at a company called Pro Sys in Campbell, CA,” that it manufactured its tools 

“in the states of OK, IL, NV, WI, and WA,” and that “[t]here were no contacts between [CTI or 

Gens] and [Plaspro] in California after 2007.” Decl. of Gens to Supp. Supplemental Mem. at ¶¶ 4, 

9, 17, 20, 21. Gens does not, however, state affirmatively that none of the manufacturing was 

conducted in California, nor does he dispute the testimony from Ford and Ratra that the negotiations 

leading up to the alleged Plaspro agreement took place in California. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 8 of 12
9 

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

For the Northern District of California 

exercise of jurisdiction is presumptively reasonable. To rebut that presumption, a defendant ‘must 

present a compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would, in fact, be unreasonable.” 

(emphasis in original) (citations omitted)) The Ninth Circuit balances several factors in its 

reasonableness inquiry, including: (1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the 

forum state; (2) the burden of defending in the forum state; (3) the extent of the conflict with the 

sovereignty of defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the 

most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to plaintiff’s 

interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. Burger 

King Corp, 471 U.S. at 476; see also, Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1088. 

Defendants argue that invoking personal jurisdiction in California would be unreasonable 

because CTI’s documents are located in Illinois and Wisconsin, where Gens allegedly spends most 

of his time, because California has no interest in the suit, and because other fora are available. 

These contentions, however, are unavailing. As to CTI’s documents, defendants bring forward no 

explanation as to why those documents relating to the alleged Plaspro agreement could not easily be 

transported to California. Similarly, the fact that Gens spends significant time outside of California 

is not dispositive, particularly given that his wife has a residence in Palo Alto, where he has stayed 

as recently as February 2010, and given that he is a plaintiff in two pending lawsuits in California 

state courts where he has alleged residence in Santa Clara. Moreover, CTI’s assertion that other fora 

are available is weak in the face of California’s interest in presiding over, and applying its contract 

law to, a disputed agreement alleged to have been entered into here. Accordingly, the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction over CTI is not unreasonable; indeed it is eminently reasonable, and 

foreseeable, that defendants would anticipate being haled into court in California based upon their 

contacts with the state during the negotiation and execution of the Plaspro agreement. Having 

satisfied the three prongs of the Ballard test, then, Plaspro has established a prima facie basis for 

specific jurisdiction over CTI and Gens.7

B. General Jurisdiction

 

7

 Although Gens’ California-based contacts with Plaspro were solely in his capacity as president of 

CTI, he is subject to specific jurisdiction in the state based on those contacts. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1984) (holding that an employee’s status as an employee will not insulate him 

from jurisdiction because “[e]ach defendant's contacts with the forum State must be assessed 

individually.”) 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 9 of 12
10 

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

For the Northern District of California 

In addition to establishing a basis for specific jurisdiction, Plaspro has presented sufficient 

facts demonstrating a prima facie basis for general jurisdiction over both Gens and CTI as well. 

Although the standard for general jurisdiction is high, defendants’ continuous, systematic and 

substantial activities within California suggest an “economic reality” that approximates “physical 

presence” in the forum. See Bancroft & Masters, Inc., 223 F.3d at 1086. These actions, which are 

considered in their totality, include: (1) CTI has been in existence, and has conducted all of its 

substantive activities in California, since 2003; (2) CTI purchased significant inventory from 

vendors in California; (3) Gens and Ratra attended tradeshows and meetings with potential and 

current customers in California; (4) CTI advertised a California address on its website and in its 

promotional materials, such as business cards; (5) CTI solicited sales and negotiated agreements in 

California; (6) CTI tested, manufactured and sold its products in this state; (7) Ratra, CTI’s Vice 

President of Engineering, worked primarily in California; (8) Gens has been steadily employed in 

California since 1994, including with Vello Corporation in Mountain View since sometime after 

2006 until at least September 2008; (9) Gens has filed a number of lawsuits in California, and has 

stated in the requisite pleadings that he resides in Santa Clara; (10) Gens has a valid California 

driver’s license; (11) Gens lists his registered address with the Supreme Court of Illinois as Palo 

Alto; and (12) Gens’ address on his patent application is similarly listed as Palo Alto. 

Again, although Gens disputes certain of Plaspro’s representations, when the Court resolves 

any conflicts as to the facts in Plaspro’s favor and views the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, it 

is clear that Gens and CTI both demonstrated the “[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, economic 

impact, physical presence, and integration into the state's regulatory or economic markets” that are 

indicative of presence in a forum for the purpose of general jurisdiction. See Tuazon, 433 F.3d at 

1172. Indeed, as with the specific jurisdiction analysis, it is eminently reasonable, and foreseeable, 

for both Gens and CTI to anticipate being haled into court in California. Simply put, Plaspro has 

presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie basis for general jurisdiction over Gens and 

CTI in California. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, then, must be 

denied. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 10 of 12
11 

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

For the Northern District of California 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 07/28/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 11 of 12
12 

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

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY 

PROVIDED TO: 

David S. Harris dsh@northbaylawgroup.com 

AND A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Timothy Gens 

8350 West Addison Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60634 

Babach Lau 

Law Offices of Bobby Lau 

75 E. Santa Clara Street 

Suite 295 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Dated: 07/28/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 57 Filed 07/28/10 Page 12 of 12