Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04302/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04302-1/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 4/12/10* 

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 RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

Plaintiff Plaspro GMBH (“Plaspro”) filed a complaint against defendants Chemacoustic 

Technologies, Inc. (“Chemacoustic”) and its alleged CEO Timothy Gens (“Gens”) in Santa Clara 

Superior Court1

 on October 24, 2008. The complaint alleged breach of contract, fraud, and breach 

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and requested contract rescission. Defendants 

removed the case to this Court on September 16, 2009. 

They now move to dismiss based, in part, on lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The Court has deemed the matter suitable for determination 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

 

1

 Plaintiffs have requested that the Court take judicial notice of several pleadings filed in the state 

court action. This request is granted, as the documents are from the docket of another court and thus 

are unquestionably within the standard set forth by Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 25 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 4
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 

Personal jurisdiction can be grounded on two separate concepts, commonly known as 

general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss appears to argue that neither 

theory of jurisdiction applies in this case. “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 

amenable 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, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984). “The standard for 

establishing general jurisdiction is ‘fairly high,’ Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th 

Cir. 1986), and requires that the defendant’s 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). 

“Factors to be taken into consideration are 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 a 

license, or is incorporated there.” Id. A court, however, should “focus upon 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). Finally, even if a court concludes that substantial, or continuous 

and systematic, contacts exist, the assertion of general jurisdiction must still be reasonable. See 

Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., 1 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Unlike general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction depends upon a relationship between the 

forum and the claim. Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Ninth Circuit employs “a three-part test to determine whether the district court may exercise 

specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” 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. 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.

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 25 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

If personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the district 

court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). The court may consider evidence presented in affidavits to assist it in its 

determination and may order discovery on the jurisdictional issues. Id. In this case, the parties 

differ as to the facts underlying both general and specific personal jurisdiction, such that the Court 

cannot immediately ascertain whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is appropriate. Limited 

discovery on this issue is therefore necessary. 

Accordingly, the parties are hereby authorized to engage in discovery limited to the issue of 

personal jurisdiction. At this time, the Court will refrain from setting specific limits on the types or 

numbers of discovery procedures authorized by this order, but the parties are cautioned that the 

discovery is to be narrowly focused and as limited as possible. No later than May 21, 2010, the 

parties shall file supplemental briefs (not to exceed ten pages each) along with any accompanying 

declarations they shall deem necessary, pertaining to the facts at issue relevant to the general and 

specific jurisdiction analyses outlined above. At that time, the matter will be deemed submitted 

upon completion of the supplemental briefing.2 

The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for April 15, 2010, is continued to 

June 24, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. A supplemental joint case management statement should 

be submitted no later than June 17, 2010. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b), defendants, as the removing party, are hereby instructed to 

e-file copies of all records and proceedings in this case from the state court which have not already 

been judicially noticed pursuant to Plaspro’s request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/12/10 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

2

 Defendants have alternatively moved to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(4) and (5), alleging 

defects in service. Before addressing the merits of these issues, however, the Court must consider 

the threshold issue of its own jurisdiction. 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 25 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER 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: 4/12/10 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:09-cv-04302-PSG Document 25 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 4