Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02041/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02041-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

TRADIN ORGANICS USA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANTAGE HEALTH MATTERS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02041-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Presently before the Court is Defendant Advantage Health Matters, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Tradin Organics USA, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint. The Court 

found these matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7–1(b) and previously vacated the hearing. Having fully reviewed the parties’ briefing, the Court 

DENIES the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a wholesale supplier of raw food ingredients, including organic chia. Dkt. No. 

2 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 7. It is a limited liability company with its place of incorporation in Delaware 

and its principal place of business in California. Id. at ¶ 1. Defendant is an independent retail 

marketer of whole food and natural health products. Id. at ¶ 2. It is a corporation with its place of 

incorporation and principal place of business in Ontario, Canada. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that on February 19, 2013, it entered into a written contract with 

Defendant whereby Plaintiff would sell organic chia to Defendant (the “Sales Contract”). Id. at ¶ 

8; Dkt. No. 2-1, Exh. 1. According to the Sales Contract, Defendant would purchase 9,600 bags 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 17
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

weighing 25 kilograms each for a total purchase of 529,104 pounds. Compl. at ¶ 9. The price 

agreed upon was $4.10 per pound, amounting to a total value of $2,169,326.40. Id. The Sales 

Contract also provided that the organic chia would be tendered monthly, from September 2013 to 

August 2014, to a warehouse in New Jersey. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. 

Plaintiff alleges that in August 2013, the parties communicated to discuss the first 

shipment that would be made in September 2013. Id. at ¶ 11. In September 2013, the first 

shipment was made to the warehouse in New Jersey, but Defendant allegedly did not pick it up. 

Id. at ¶¶ 12-14. In January 2014,

1 Defendant allegedly made arrangements to pick up the organic 

chia that had been tendered in September. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that this is the only 

installment of organic chia that Defendant has accepted. Id. 

On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that it provided Defendant with a written demand 

that Defendant accept delivery of the five installments Plaintiff had tendered, and Plaintiff 

provided Defendant with a schedule for the remaining six installments due under the Sales 

Contract. Id. at ¶ 20. One week later, Defendant allegedly notified Plaintiff that it considered the 

Sales Contract null and void because Plaintiff had failed to timely tender the organic chia. Id. at ¶ 

21. 

Plaintiff alleges that as of the date of the complaint, it has tendered all eight installments 

due under the Sales Contract, but Defendant has only accepted the September 2013 shipment and 

refused to accept the remaining seven of those installments. Id. at ¶¶ 15, 19. The agreed-upon 

amount of organic chia has allegedly been tendered at the warehouse in New Jersey, and each 

shipment has allegedly conformed to the specifications listed on the product specification sheet. 

Id. at ¶¶ 16-18; Dkt. No. 2-1, Exh. 2. 

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on May 5, 2014. See Dkt. No. 2. It alleges two 

claims: (1) breach of contract for Defendant’s alleged failure to receive delivery of the chia and 

refusal to pay for the chia; and (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing for 

 

1

In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in “January 2013,” Defendant picked up the shipment. 

Compl. at ¶ 15. The Court presumes that Plaintiff meant January 2014, not January 2013.

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 17
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

Defendant’s alleged failure to pay for the chia and repudiation of the Sales Contract, frustrating 

Plaintiff’s expectation of payment. See id. at 4-5. In August 2014, Defendant filed the instant 

motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and invoking the 

doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Dkt. No. 11 (“Mot.”). In September 2014, Plaintiff filed 

an opposition brief, and Defendant filed a reply brief. See Dkt. Nos. 20 (“Opp.”), 24 (“Reply”). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

Under Rule 12(b)(2), a defendant may move for dismissal based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Two independent limitations may restrict a court’s power to 

exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: the applicable state personal 

jurisdiction rule and constitutional principles of due process. Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 

1360 (9th Cir. 1990). California’s statutory limitation is co-extensive with the outer limits of due 

process. See id. at 1361; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10. Accordingly, the federal and state 

jurisdictional inquiries merge into a single analysis. See Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 

587 (9th Cir. 1993).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) 

Under Rule 12(b)(3), a defendant may move for dismissal based on improper venue. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. When considering a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), a court need not accept the pleadings as true and may consider 

facts outside of the pleadings. Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir. 

1996). Once the defendant has challenged the propriety of venue in a given court, the plaintiff

bears the burden of showing that venue is proper. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing 

Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if the court determines 

that venue is improper, the court must either dismiss the action or, if it is in the interests of justice, 

transfer the case to a district or division in which it could have been brought. Whether to dismiss 

for improper venue, or alternatively to transfer venue to a proper court, is a matter within the 

sound discretion of the district court. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 17
4

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

C. Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens

Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, “[a] district court has discretion to decline to 

exercise jurisdiction in a case where litigation in a foreign forum would be more convenient for 

the parties.” Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001). In a motion to 

dismiss based on the ground of forum non conveniens, the defendant must make a “clear showing 

of facts which establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion to 

plaintiff’s convenience, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent.” Dole Food Co., Inc. v. 

Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002). The determination to dismiss under this doctrine is at 

the discretion of the district court. Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143.

III. DISCUSSION

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant sets forth three arguments: (1) this Court lacks 

personal jurisdiction over Defendant; (2) this venue is improper; and (3) under the doctrine of 

forum non conveniens, an adequate alternative forum exists in Toronto, Canada. Mot. at 2. Each 

basis for the motion will be addressed in turn. 

A. Personal Jurisdiction 

Personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is proper if the exercise of the 

jurisdiction does not violate federal due process. In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust 

Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013). To satisfy due process, the defendant must have 

“minimum contacts” with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. There are two kinds of jurisdiction that 

a court may exercise over an out-of-state defendant: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. 

Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014). For a corporation, general 

jurisdiction exists in the states where it is “essentially at home,” such as its place of incorporation 

and principal place of business. Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 769 F.3d 681, 689 (9th Cir. 

2014). Specific jurisdiction exists when the corporation’s activities in the forum state has given 

rise to the suit. Id. 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 17
5

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

“[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction.” In re W.

States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d at 741. The plaintiff must make a prima 

facie showing of jurisdictional facts, and the court must resolve all disputed facts in the plaintiff’s 

favor. Id. 

i. General Jurisdiction 

“To establish general jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has 

sufficient contacts to constitute the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts 

that approximate physical presence.” Id. “General jurisdiction over a corporation is appropriate 

only when the corporation’s contacts with the forum state are so constant and pervasive as to 

render it essentially at home in the state.” Martinez, 764 F.3d at 1066.

In its motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not met its burden to establish general 

jurisdiction in California. Mot. at 9. It further argues that even if the Sales Contract’s governing 

law clause were applied, that only specifies the applicable law in the event of a dispute, but does 

not confer jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff, however, does not offer an argument concerning general 

jurisdiction. Given the absence of an argument from Plaintiff, this Court presumes that Plaintiff 

concedes this point. Thus, there is no basis to invoke general jurisdiction. 

ii. Specific Jurisdiction 

To exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the Ninth Circuit applies a 

three-prong test to determine whether a defendant has sufficient contacts to be susceptible to 

specific 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 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.

Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff 

bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 17
6

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). If the plaintiff succeeds, then the burden shifts to the defendant 

to present a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. Both 

prongs are discussed below. 

a. First Prong: Purposeful Availment 

To satisfy the first prong of the sufficient contacts test, a plaintiff must establish that the 

defendant either purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum 

state, or purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 

802. Purposeful availment and purposeful direction are two distinct concepts, with the former 

used in suits sounding in contract and the latter used in suits sounding in tort. Id. 

Here, Defendant relies on the “purposeful direction” standard, and briefly argues that the 

Ninth Circuit has cautioned against a broad application of the standard in cases involving foreign 

defendants. Mot. at 9. This action, however, concerns a breach of contract. Since the Ninth 

Circuit has stated that cases primarily sounding in contract are typically analyzed under a 

“purposeful availment” standard, it is this standard that will be examined in this case. See

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008).

“To have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum, a 

defendant must have performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the 

transaction of business within the forum state.” Id. Forming a contract with an out-of-state 

defendant is “not, standing alone, sufficient to create jurisdiction.” Id. at 1017. Thus, courts 

“must look to prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of 

the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing to determine if the defendant’s contacts are 

substantial and not merely random, fortuitous, or attenuated.” Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (internal 

quotations and emphasis omitted).

Here, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of 

doing business in California. Opp. at 5. It argues that Defendant reached out to and negotiated 

with the California-based Plaintiff, and Defendant finalized the Sales Contract with Plaintiff’s 

employees located in California. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further argues that the Sales Contract 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 17
7

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

established an ongoing business relationship where once per month for twelve months, Plaintiff 

was to tender organic chia to Defendant. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that over the course of 

2013, the parties entered into at least seven additional contracts for the procurement of various 

organic food products, and Defendant negotiated these contracts with Plaintiff’s employees 

located in California. Id.; see Dkt. No. 21, Declaration of Hendrik Rabbie (“Rabbie Decl.”), Exhs. 

1-7 (the “additional contracts”). Plaintiff claims that pursuant to three of these additional 

contracts, Defendant picked up the products in California. Id. at 7. 

In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff refused or was unable to deliver the organic 

chia pursuant to the Sales Contract, and when it was delivered, the product was nonconforming. 

Reply at 8. Defendant further argues that six of the seven additional contracts were not signed by 

Defendant or entered into by Defendant. Id. at 9. As to the seventh additional contract, Defendant 

contends that it never entered California, but instead sent a common carrier to pick up the product 

and deliver it to Defendant’s warehouse in New York. Id. 

This Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the 

privilege of doing business in California. While the formation of a contract is not by itself 

sufficient, it is significant that Defendant negotiated the Sales Contract with a California-based 

Plaintiff, and the Sales Contract established a one-year long business relationship, at a value of 

$2.1 million, that required the procurement of a California-based product. Moreover, it is 

significant that the parties allegedly entered into at least seven additional contracts for the 

procurement of other California-based products. While it is true that six of the additional contracts 

do not bear Defendant’s signature, that is an issue pertaining to the validity of the contracts and 

not one pertaining to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. See Rabbie Decl., 

Exhs. 1-6. 

At this pleading stage, Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts, 

and this Court must resolve all disputed facts in Plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 

offered sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the 

privilege of doing business in California, and has thus satisfied the first prong of the sufficient 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 7 of 17
8

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

contacts test. 

b. Second Prong: Claims Arising Out Of, or Related To, Forum Activities 

The second prong of the sufficient contacts test assesses whether “the claim asserted in the 

litigation arises out of the defendant’s forum related activities.” Panavision Intern., L.P. v. 

Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit has referred to this prong as a 

“but for” test. In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d at 742. “Under 

the ‘but for’ test, a lawsuit arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the forum state if a direct 

nexus exists between those contacts and the cause of action.” Id. Thus, the question is: “but for 

Defendants’ contacts with California, would Plaintiff’s claims have arisen?” CFA N. Cal., Inc. v. 

CRT Partners LLP, 378 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1186 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see Panavision Intern., L.P. v. 

Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot meet this prong because of its untimely or 

nonconforming delivery of the organic chia. Mot. at 10; Reply at 10. In opposition, Plaintiff 

argues that its claims do arise out of Defendant’s contacts with California because, in addition to 

the Sales Contract, the parties entered into at least seven additional contracts. Opp. at 7. Plaintiff 

further contends that Defendant’s contacts with California include the negotiations of the 

allegedly-breached Sales Contract. Id. 

As an initial matter, the Court will focus on the Sales Contract since that is the basis for 

Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim. Thus, for the purpose of evaluating this second prong, the 

Court will not consider the seven additional contracts allegedly entered into by the parties.

The Sales Contract itself shows Plaintiff’s address in California, Defendant’s address in 

Canada, the terms of the organic chia purchase and delivery, a printed list of individuals associated 

with Plaintiff, and the signature of Defendant’s representative along with the handwritten date of 

“Feb 19/2013” and place “Toronto, Canada.” See Dkt. No. 2-1, Exh. 1. Plaintiff’s breach-ofcontract claim arises out of Defendant’s alleged failure to accept delivery of the organic chia and 

refusal to pay. See Compl. at ¶ 25. Therefore, in answering the “but for” question: But for 

Defendant’s negotiations with a California-based company to purchase organic chia, and its 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 8 of 17
9

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

participation in a Sales Contract to purchase organic chia that is procured from California, 

Plaintiff’s claim for the alleged breach of the Sales Contract would not have arisen. Defendant’s 

argument regarding Plaintiff’s untimely or nonconforming delivery is unpersuasive because that 

pertains to the merits of the breach-of-contract claim, and not to the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction over Defendant. 

Accordingly, resolving all disputed facts in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff has made a prima 

facie showing of jurisdictional facts to satisfy the second prong of the sufficient contacts test. 

c. Third Prong: Reasonableness 

“Once the [plaintiff has] shown that the exercise of personal jurisdiction satisfies the first 

two prongs of the personal jurisdiction test, the burden shifts to the defendant to make a 

compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” In re W. States 

Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d at 745. To determine reasonableness, the Ninth 

Circuit considers the following factors: 

(1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the 

forum state, (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the 

forum, (3) the extent of the conflict with the sovereignty of the 

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 the plaintiff’s interest in 

convenient and effective relief, and (7) the existence of an 

alternative forum. 

Id. Each factor will be addressed. 

1. Extent of Defendant’s Purposeful Interjection Into the Forum State

In its motion, Defendant did not present an argument for this factor. In its reply brief, 

Defendant briefly argues that the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and 

substantial justice, and that jurisdictional rules should not be employed so as to make litigation 

gravely difficult and inconvenient such that a party is at a severe disadvantage. Reply at 10. 

Defendant further argues that it is unreasonable to subject it to personal jurisdiction because, 

through the Sales Contract and additional contracts, its contacts with California are minor. Id. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s interjection into California has been 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 9 of 17
10

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

significant because it initiated contract negotiations with Plaintiff, it agreed to undertake ongoing 

obligations under the contract by agreeing to ongoing deliveries of the organic chia, and it 

negotiated and entered into at least seven additional contracts with Plaintiff’s employees based in 

California. Opp. at 8. Furthermore, with respect to three of the additional contracts, Defendant 

agreed to accept delivery in California, and Defendant agreed to a California choice-of-law 

provision in all of the contracts it negotiated with Plaintiff. Id. 

Defendant’s arguments are not compelling. Defendant entered into a $2.1 million Sales 

Contract with a California-based company whereby it agreed to purchase organic chia for a oneyear period, and the organic chia is procured and shipped from California. Defendant’s purposeful 

interjection into California is sufficient for it to know that a breach of its contractual obligation 

would result in injury towards Plaintiff in California. See Dole Food Co., 303 F.3d at 1114-15

(finding that there was sufficient purposeful injection where defendants knew that their scheme 

would injure plaintiff, whose principal place of business was in California, and where defendants 

engaged in repeated communications with plaintiff). Defendant has not shown unreasonableness. 

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of exercising jurisdiction. 

2. Burden on Defendant in Defending in the Forum State 

In its motion, Defendant contends that it would face a distinctly high burden to defend 

itself in California. Mot. at 10. It argues that, with the exception of Plaintiff, all of the witnesses 

and records to the transaction are located in Ontario, Canada. Dkt. No. 11, Declaration of Jerry 

Zeifman (“Zeifman Decl.”) at ¶ 19. Defendant asserts that such records include: communications 

between the parties; records of Plaintiff’s alleged untimely and nonconforming delivery; records 

of independent testing laboratories regarding the alleged nonconforming product; records 

pertaining to the rejection and/or revocation of acceptance of the nonconforming products; and 

records pertaining to the termination of the contract. Id. Moreover, Defendant relies on Asahi 

Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987), for the 

proposition that burdens placed on those who defend in a foreign legal system should have 

significant weight in assessing reasonableness. Mot. at 10. 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 10 of 17
11

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant would not be burdened by litigation in 

California because Defendant has dealt directly and extensively with Plaintiff, a California 

company. Opp. at 8-9. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that almost all litigation activity prior to trial 

could be conducted electronically or telephonically, and to the extent that Defendant’s witnesses 

need to travel to California, non-stop flights are available from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to San 

Francisco, California. Id. at 9. In response, Defendant argues that, likewise, Plaintiff can litigate 

this action electronically or telephonically, and can travel to Toronto. Reply at 11. 

While Defendant—and Plaintiff—can travel and litigate remotely, it would be burdensome 

and inconvenient for Defendant, based in Ontario, Canada, to litigate this action in California. See

Dole Food Co., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1115 (recognizing that it would be expensive and inconvenient 

for defendants, who live abroad, to defend themselves in California). Therefore, this factor weighs 

against exercising jurisdiction. 

3. Extent of the Conflict with the Sovereignty of Defendant’s State

Defendant does not present an argument as to this factor. Plaintiff, on the other hand,

argues that there is no concern about the conflict of the sovereignty of Ontario or Canada because 

this is a basic breach-of-contract case that does not present delicate issues of sovereignty. Opp. at 

9. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. This action is a basic breach-of-contract case between two 

companies engaging in commercial dealings. There is no indication that this type of case would 

present a conflict with the sovereignty of either the Province of Ontario or Canada. Since 

Defendant has not presented an argument as to this factor, it weighs in favor of exercising 

jurisdiction. 

4. Forum State’s Interest in Adjudicating the Dispute

In its motion, Defendant relies on Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of 

California, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987), to state that the Supreme Court has cautioned against an 

overly broad definition of a forum state’s interest. Mot. at 10. In opposition, Plaintiff states that 

California has a substantial interest in ensuring that contracts involving its citizens are not 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 11 of 17
12

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

breached. Opp. at 9. 

California has a strong interest in providing a forum for its residents and citizens who have 

been injured by a contractual breach. See Luberski, Inc. v. Oleficio F.LLI Amato S.R.L., 171 Cal. 

App. 4th 409, 419 (2009) (“California courts have a strong interest in enforcing contracts 

providing for performance within the state.”). Given that Plaintiff’s principal place of business is 

California and that it entered into a contract to procure a product from California, it is very likely 

that Plaintiff will suffer injury in California when payment is not tendered. See Dole Food Co., 

Inc., 303 F.3d at 1115-16 (noting that the state of the plaintiff’s principal place of business is 

significant). This is not an overly broad definition of California’s interest with its residents. Thus, 

this factor weighs in favor of exercising jurisdiction. 

5. Most Efficient Judicial Resolution of the Controversy 

Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff presented an argument as to this factor. Relying on the 

current record, there is no one court that would be more efficient than another to resolve this 

dispute since it appears that there are witnesses and evidence located in both California and 

Canada. See id. (witnesses in both locations do not provide either forum with a clear efficiency 

advantage). Nonetheless, since Defendant has not presented an argument as to this factor, it 

weighs in favor of exercising jurisdiction. 

6. Importance of the Forum to Plaintiff’s Interest in Convenient and 

Effective Relief 

In its motion, Defendant did not present an argument for this factor. Plaintiff, on the other 

hand, argues that California would be a more convenient and effective forum for Plaintiff than 

Ontario, Canada. Opp. at 9. It argues that its witnesses are based in California, and that it would 

likely need to obtain new Canadian counsel if it had to refile this action in Ontario, Canada. Id. In 

response, Defendant appears to argue that it, likewise, would have to retain counsel in California. 

Reply at 11. 

Since this factor focuses on Plaintiff’s convenience and avenue for relief, Defendant’s sole 

argument that it would have to retain counsel in California is not persuasive. Moreover, California 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 12 of 17
13

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

would certainly be the most convenient forum for Plaintiff to litigate this case given that it is a 

resident of the state and its witnesses and evidence are located in the state. Additionally, 

California would provide effective relief because the Sales Contract contains a California choiceof-law provision. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of exercising jurisdiction. 

7. Existence of an Alternative Forum 

In its motion, Defendant did not present an argument for this factor. In its reply brief, 

however, it argues that litigating in Canada would not be new for Plaintiff because Plaintiff has 

done so previously. Reply at 12. Moreover, Defendant offers a declaration from Richard J. 

Worsfold, L.L.B., who is a lawyer licensed to practice in the Province of Ontario, Canada. See

Dkt. No. 26, Declaration of Richard J. Worsfold in Support of Defendant’s Reply (“Worsfold 

Decl.”) at ¶ 1. Mr. Worsfold is a partner at the law firm Basman Smith LLP— Defendant’s 

counsel in Toronto, Canada in this action—and states that an alternative forum for this action 

would be the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 10. Mr. Worsfold asserts

that the Superior Court of Justice is among the most respected courts in Canada and the world, it 

frequently hears and adjudicates commercial disputes among businesses, and it has the capacity to 

apply foreign law specified in choice-of-law contractual provisions. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. 

If this action is not litigated in California, then the only alternative forum is a court in 

Ontario, Canada. Since Defendant has offered a declaration from a licensed attorney in Canada, 

this is sufficient for Defendant to persuasively argue that an alternative forum exists in the 

Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. Therefore, this factor weighs against exercising jurisdiction. 

8. Conclusion as to Reasonableness 

In evaluating the reasonableness factors as a whole, only two factors favor Defendant—the 

burden on Defendant and the existence of an alternative forum. By its nature, however, the factor 

regarding the burden on the defendant will likely favor a foreign defendant every time personal 

jurisdiction is considered. Dole Food Co., 303 F.3d at 1117. Accordingly, Defendant has not 

made a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction in California would be unreasonable. 

 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 13 of 17
14

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

iii. Conclusion as to Personal Jurisdiction

This Court will not exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant because Plaintiff appears

to concede that such jurisdiction does not apply. This Court will, however, exercise specific 

jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of 

conducting activities in California, Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim is one that arises out of or 

relates to Defendant’s activities in California, and the exercise of jurisdiction in California is 

reasonable. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is 

DENIED. 

B. Venue 

Generally, venue is proper in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;” or in “a judicial district in 

which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(1)-(2). If there is no district that satisfies either of these conditions, then venue is proper 

in “any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with 

respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). If venue is improper, then the district court must 

dismiss the case or transfer it. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Here, Defendant contends that this action should be dismissed because venue is improper. 

Mot. at 10. It argues that the Northern District of California is improper because Defendant does 

not reside in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims did not occur in 

the district, and Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Id. at 11. 

Moreover, Defendant argues that venue is more appropriate in Canada. Id. 

In the case of a foreign defendant, Section 1391 provides: “a defendant not resident in the 

United States may be sued in any judicial district[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). It is undisputed that 

Defendant is not a resident of the United States, thus any judicial district in the United States 

would be a proper venue. Given that this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, 

then the Northern District of California is a proper venue. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss for improper venue is DENIED.

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 14 of 17
15

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

C. Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

“A party moving to dismiss based on forum non conveniens bears the burden of showing 

(1) that there is an adequate alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of private and public 

interest factors favors dismissal.” Dole Food Co., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1118. This doctrine is “an 

exceptional tool to be employed sparingly, not a doctrine that compels plaintiffs to choose the 

optimal forum for their claim.” Id. 

i. Adequate Alternative Forum 

An adequate alternative forum exists “when it provides the plaintiff with a sufficient 

remedy for his wrong” and “when defendants are amenable to service of process in the foreign 

forum.” Id. 

In its motion, Defendant argues that the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, 

Canada provides an adequate alternative forum. Mot. at 12. While Plaintiff argued that Defendant 

offered no admissible evidence as to the existence of an adequate alternative forum, Defendant 

included in its reply brief Mr. Worsfold’s declaration vouching for the adequacy of the Superior 

Court of Justice. See Opp. at 10; Worsfold Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9. 

As discussed above, Defendant’s argument of the existence of an adequate alternative 

forum is persuasive. Therefore, Defendant has met its burden of showing the existence of an 

adequate alternative forum. 

ii. Private Interest Factors 

The Ninth Circuit has identified the following private interest factors to consider: “ease of 

access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling 

witnesses, and cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; and likelihood of a fair trial.” 

Dole Food Co., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1119. 

Defendant argues that all of its witnesses, records, and physical evidence are located in 

Ontario, Canada; the California forum is inconvenient; and that the most practical and inexpensive 

location to litigate this action would be in Canada. Mot. at 12-13. In opposition, Plaintiff argues 

that the majority of communications between the parties occurred by email, which is easily 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 15 of 17
16

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

accessible in California or Canada; Defendant’s records and reports can be electronically scanned 

and emailed to Plaintiff’s counsel; the residence of potential witnesses may be evenly split 

between California and Canada; and there is no indication that litigating in Canada would be less 

expensive than in California. Opp. at 11. 

Given the extraordinary remedy of dismissing this action so that Plaintiff can re-file in 

Canada, Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the private interest factors favor 

dismissal. Defendant will be able to electronically or physically mail its records and physical 

evidence to California, relevant witnesses will be able to travel to California, and the likelihood of 

obtaining a fair trial in California is very high. Defendant has not shown that litigating in 

California would be so extraordinarily burdensome and inconvenient so as to warrant this 

extraordinary measure. Therefore, the balance of these factors does not favor dismissal. 

iii. Public Interest Factors

The Ninth Circuit has also identified the following public interest factors to consider: 

“court congestion, local interest in resolving the controversy, and preference for having a forum 

apply a law with which it is familiar.” Dole Food Co., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1119. 

Defendant argues that this action should be litigated in Canada because this Court is a busy 

court. Mot. at 13. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no reason to believe that the 

Superior Court of Justice in Toronto is any less busy, or that this Court would be incapable of 

efficiently adjudicating this matter. Opp. at 11. 

As with the private interest factors, Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the 

public interest factors favor dismissal. Court congestion is not a concern given that this Court is 

capable of presiding over this case, there is local interest since this action concerns a Californiabased company, and there is a preference for having this Court preside over the action because the 

Sales Contract contains a choice-of-law provision that invokes California substantive law. 

Therefore, the balance of these factors does not favor dismissal. 

iv. Conclusion as to Forum Non Conveniens

Dismissing an action on the ground of forum non conveniens is an extraordinary measure 

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 16 of 17
17

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02041-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

that is not easily invoked. Defendant has failed to meet its burden of showing that the balance of 

private and public interest factors favors dismissal, and therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendant shall file 

an answer within fifteen days of the date of this order. 

The Court schedules this case for a case management conference at 10:00 a.m. on April 9, 

2015. The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement on or before April 2, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02041-EJD Document 33 Filed 03/23/15 Page 17 of 17