Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05019/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05019-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AN PHAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GRAND BAHAMA CRUISE LINE, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05019-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT 

JURISIDCTIONAL DISCOVERY

[Re: ECF 45]

Plaintiffs An Phan and Taylor Bartlett, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, request leave to conduct limited discovery. ECF 45. Defendants Bahamas Paradise 

Cruise Line, LLC and Cruise Operator, Inc. (collectively, “Bahamas Paradise Defendants”) 

opposed the Motion, and Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC (“GBCL”) joined in the opposition. 

ECF 51, 52. The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for disposition without oral 

argument. ECF 57. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court in September 2015, alleging a single claim for 

relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) against GBCL and the Bahamas 

Paradise Defendants. Ex. A to Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Plaintiffs alleged that GBCL violated 

the TCPA by calling them repeatedly—once calling Plaintiff An Phan back within eight minutes 

of his active “opt out” of such calls—to offer a free cruise to the Bahamas. First Amended Compl. 

(“FAC”) ¶¶ 18–31, ECF 32. Plaintiffs seek to hold the Bahamas Paradise Defendants liable for 

these calls on the theory that GBCL “is a tour operator for [the Bahamas Paradise Defendants] or 

has been retained by [them] to undertake promotional activity on their behalf.” Id. ¶ 32. In 

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

November 2015, the Bahamas Paradise Defendants removed the action to this Court. Notice of 

Removal, ECF 1. The Bahamas Paradise Defendants then moved to dismiss the allegations 

against them pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing that 

Plaintiffs failed to allege a basis for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them and 

failed to state a claim for relief against them. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 25. 

In support of their Motion to Dismiss, the Bahamas Paradise Defendants filed several 

declarations contesting Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations. Specifically, the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants contended that Cruise Operator, Inc. operates, but does not own, the Grand 

Celebration cruise ship; both of the Bahamas Paradise Defendants transact business out of Florida, 

not California; neither of them has ever “controlled” GBCL’s telemarketing activities; and neither 

of them has any “affiliation” with GBCL. Ryerson Decl. ¶¶ 3–11, ECF 26; Lambert Decl. ¶¶ 3–

12, ECF 27. The Court granted the Bahamas Paradise Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, but granted 

Plaintiffs leave to amend. ECF 42. The Court found that “Plaintiffs [had] failed to adequately 

plead any of the three forms of agency necessary to support a claim of vicarious liability or for 

exercising jurisdiction on that basis[.]” Id. at 3. The Court also found that “even if Plaintiffs had 

sufficiently alleged an agency relationship in their FAC, they failed to controvert the declarations 

the Bahamas Paradise Defendants submitted to show a lack of agency.” Id. 

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Expedited Jurisdictional Discovery.

ECF 45. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny [jurisdictional] 

discovery.” Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Jurisdictional discovery should ordinarily be granted “where pertinent facts bearing on the 

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

necessary.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 

1977) (holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant jurisdictional 

discovery). 

In this district, courts have held that “a plaintiff need not make out a prima facie case of 

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

personal jurisdiction before it can obtain jurisdictional discovery.” Calix Networks, Inc. v. WiLan, Inc., No. 09-cv-06038-CRB (DRM), 2010 WL 3515759, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010) 

(citing eMag Sols., LLC v. Toda Kogyo Corp., No. C 02-1611, 2006 WL 3783548, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 21, 2006) (“It would . . . be counterintuitive to require a plaintiff, prior to conducting 

discovery, to meet the same burden that would be required to defeat a motion to dismiss.”). 

“Rather, a plaintiff must present a ‘colorable basis’ for jurisdiction, or ‘some evidence’ 

constituting a lesser showing than a prima facie case.” Id. (citations omitted). Indeed, the Ninth 

Circuit has reversed for abuse of discretion when further discovery “might well” have established 

a basis for personal jurisdiction. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 

328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. May 12, 2003). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdictional Discovery

Plaintiffs contend that “the respective websites of the Bahamas Paradise Defendants and 

GBCL provide a colorable basis for concluding that further discovery might well reveal facts 

demonstrating that the Bahamas Paradise Defendants have retained GBCL to act as their 

promotional agent.” Mot. 2, ECF 45. Plaintiffs make several arguments in support of 

jurisdictional discovery: First, Plaintiffs assert that “the purpose of GBCL’s website is to promote 

cruises aboard the Grand Celebration—the one and only ship mentioned anywhere on the[ir] 

website, and a ship that happens to be owned by one of the Bahamas Paradise Defendants and 

operated by the other.” Id. Second, Plaintiffs allege that “the materials available on GBCL’s 

website are largely identical to, if not exactly the same as, those found on the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants’ website, including images of the Grand Celebration, the use of the same logos, 

descriptions of the same promotional offers, and the linking-to of nearly identical forms.” See id. 

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that “the telephone number held out by GBCL to Grand Celebration 

passengers actually belongs to the Bahamas Paradise Defendants.” See id. at 6. According to 

Plaintiffs, “[t]his demonstrates a relationship between GBCL and the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants, and it conflicts with the [Defendants’] Declarations’ vague assertion that no 

‘affiliation’ between the companies exists.” Id. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that “these facts provide a 

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

colorable basis for questioning the veracity of the statements found in [Defendants’] Declarations, 

and they justify limited discovery on the nature of the affiliation between the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants and GBCL.” Id. at 2.

The Bahamas Paradise Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that Plaintiffs “have 

failed to make a colorable showing or present any evidence that the Court can exercise personal 

jurisdiction over the Bahamas Paradise Defendants, and they disregard that the proper inquiry for 

agency relationship is whether the Bahamas Paradise Defendants had the right to control and 

direct the telemarketing activities at issue[.]” Opp.12, ECF 50. Specifically, they argue that 

“Plaintiffs were required to present evidence of an agency relationship between [GBCL] and the 

Bahamas Paradise Defendants related to the alleged telemarketing conduct that forms the basis of 

Plaintiffs’ TCPA claim,” but they did not do so. Id. at 5–6. The Bahamas Paradise Defendants 

also argue that Plaintiffs “exaggerate the supposedly ‘overwhelming similarity’ of Bahama 

Paradise’s and Grand Bahama’s websites, and never explain how that is evidence of an agency 

relationship.” Id. at 7. Moreover, the Bahamas Paradise Defendants argue that “[n]othing on the 

websites indicates an agency relationship” between them and GBCL. Id. at 8. Thus, the Bahamas 

Paradise Defendants ask this Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant GBCL joined the 

Bahamas Paradise Defendants opposition. Joinder, ECF 52.1

In reply, Plaintiffs contend that jurisdictional discovery on the business relationship 

between the Bahamas Paradise Defendants and GBCL will yield jurisdictionally relevant facts. 

Reply ISO Mot. 3, ECF 56.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established that a more satisfactory showing of 

the facts is necessary and that there is a “colorable basis” for jurisdiction based on one of the three

methods of establishing agency. Although the Bahamas Paradise Defendants rightly point out that 

Plaintiffs fail to provide significant evidence supporting their agency theories, Plaintiffs are not 

 

1 GBCL uses the joinder to “plead[ ] its entitlement to dismissal . . . on the basis of Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6)[.]” Joinder 2, ECF 52. Specifically, GBCL 

claims that it “was never formally served with the First Amended Complaint” or the original 

complaint. Id. GBCL has not filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12 or in compliance with Civil L.R. 7. Thus, these issues are not properly before the 

Court. 

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 6
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

Northern District of California

required to do so at this stage. Rather, Plaintiffs must present only a “colorable basis” for 

jurisdiction. They have done so by highlighting the similarities in the webpages, documents, and 

phone numbers of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that limited jurisdictional 

discovery is warranted on the issue of whether GBCL serves as an agent of the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants such that GBCL’s California contacts may be imputed to the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants.

In their opposition, the Bahamas Paradise Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ 

motion because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s meet and confer requirement prior to 

filing the motion. Opp. 3–4, ECF 50. To the extent Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s 

meet and confer requirement, the defect has been cured—it is evident from Plaintiffs’ reply that 

the parties did meet and confer. See generally Reply, ECF 56. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ have 

provided a narrow discovery plan in compliance with the Court’s previous order. Id. at 4; see also 

Ex. B to Reply ISO Mot., ECF 56-2.

Finally, the Bahamas Paradise Defendants also ask that the Court grant them leave to 

conduct jurisdictional discovery. Opp. 12, ECF 50. Because Plaintiffs do not object, the Court 

finds such discovery warranted as well. Reply 4, ECF 56.

B. Scope of Discovery

In their Reply,2Plaintiffs request leave to: (1) take a four hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 

limited to any relationship or dealings between the Bahamas Paradise Defendants and GBCL; any 

benefit received by the Bahamas Paradise Defendants as a result of GBCL’s telemarketing 

activities; and any knowledge the Bahamas Paradise Defendants have of such activities and (2) 

serve requests for production of documents on the Bahamas Paradise Defendants, seeking any 

documents that discuss or evidence the matters enumerated above. Reply ISO Mot. 4, ECF 56. 

Defendants object to the scope of Plaintiffs’ request, and ask the Court to limit jurisdictional 

 

2 After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendants’ Opposition, this Court ordered the parties to 

meet and confer in an attempt to narrow the scope of Plaintiffs’ requested jurisdictional discovery. 

ECF 45. The parties complied with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs provided a narrower discover 

plan in their Reply. See Reply ISO Mot., ECF 56.

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 6
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

Northern District of California

discovery to any agency relationship involving GBCL’s telemarketing calls to Plaintiffs in 

California. Id. at 5 (drafted by the Bahamas Paradise Defendants). 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to take a four hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 

However, because the Court agrees with Defendants that the request is overly broad, the 

deposition must be limited to the following topics: 

a. Any relationship or dealings between GBCL and the Bahamas Paradise Defendants (or any 

of their agents or co-venturers, including but not limited to tour operators) relating to the 

Grand Celebration.

b. Any benefit, direct or indirect, received by the Bahamas Paradise Defendants as a result of 

GBCL’s telemarketing.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to discuss “any knowledge the Bahamas Paradise 

Defendants have of GBCL’s telemarketing activities for the booking of cruises on the Grand 

celebration.” The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to the proposed document request as it

relates to (a) and (b) above.

Additionally, the Court GRANTS the Bahamas Paradise Defendants’ request to conduct 

jurisdictional discovery as enumerated in Exhibit C to Plaintiffs’ reply. Ex. C to Reply ISO Mot., 

ECF 56-3 (drafted by the Bahamas Paradise Defendants). 

The parties are ORDERED to complete jurisdictional discovery on or before November 

28, 2016 and to file an amended complaint, if any, or a notice of dismissal by December 30, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05019-BLF Document 58 Filed 09/28/16 Page 6 of 6