Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00397/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00397-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTERNET ARCHIVE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUZANNE SHELL,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-00397 JSW

ORDER REGARDING

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS;

VACATING HEARING DATE;

AND REFERRING DISCOVERY

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has received numerous filings in this matter, including: (1) Defendant Shell’s

motion to transfer to the District Court of Colorado; (2) Shell’s motion to amend the

counterclaims to add individual third party defendants; (3) Plaintiff Internet Archive’s motion to

dismiss three out of the four causes of action in the counterclaims; (4) Shell’s motion to strike

the motion to dismiss; and (5) Shell’s recently-filed motion for Rule 11 sanctions against

Internet Archive’s counsel. The only properly noticed motions (Shell’s motions to transfer and

to amend, as well as Internet Archive’s motion to dismiss) were set on this Court’s calendar to

be heard Friday, May 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. In the interest of orderly resolution of the parties’

disputes, this Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing on the motions and the case management

conference set for May 19, 2006, and sets out its partial ruling below with instructions for the

parties. 

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The Court reserves ruling on the issue of venue, but because Shell appears to

confuse the concepts of venue and jurisdiction, for the sake of clarification, the Court sets out

below the standard for transfer based on venue. “For the convenience of parties and

witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). To determine if

transfer to another forum would better serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and

be in the interest of justice, the Court must consider both the private and public interest

factors affecting the convenience of the forum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison

Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The factors to be considered are: (1) plaintiff’s

choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) convenience of the witnesses; (4) access

to compulsory process of third party witnesses; (5) ease of access to sources of proof; (6)

local interest in the controversy; (7) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; and

(8) relative court congestion in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09

(1947); Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. 

2

A. Personal Jurisdiction Issues.

1. The Court Does Not Find Shell Has Waived Her Jurisdictional Objection.

In opposition to Shell’s motion to transfer, Internet Archive contends that Shell has

waived her objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to assert the objection in her first 

responsive pleading and by filing a counterclaim. Shell, appearing pro se, indicated in her

answer that although the Court maintained subject matter jurisdiction, she contested the

propriety of the venue. (See Second Amended Answer, ¶¶ 4, 5.) It is clear that Shell does not

recognize the legal distinction between an objection to personal jurisdiction and an objection to

venue.1

 Shell admits that she may have made technical mistakes in responding to the

declaratory relief action initiated by Internet Archive, but she has consistently maintained her

objection to this Court exercising personal jurisdiction over her (see Motion to Transfer, ¶ 7;

Motion to Strike, ¶¶ 1, 9; Joint Case Management Statement, ¶ 1) and has unqualifiedly

maintained the position that “Internet Archive has no legal basis under which it can legitimately

claim a right to sue me in a California court.” (See Response to Opposition to Motion to

Transfer, ¶ 3.) The Court finds that it is clear from Shell’s initial and numerous subsequent

submissions that she contests the power of this Court to resolve the outstanding dispute between

the parties. Furthermore, it is not clear to the Court that it has the authority to exercise its

jurisdiction over this non-resident defendant.

Although the filing of an affirmative counterclaim under most circumstances constitutes

an appearance and a waiver of the objection to personal jurisdiction, Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

1023, 1033 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court finds that, as a pro se party, Shell has consistently

objected to this Court’s hearing this matter including in the very same counterclaim. Therefore,

in recognition of Shell’s pro se status, the Court will consider the merits of her objection to

personal jurisdiction. See Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Reyad, 167 F. Supp. 2d 222, 234

(D. Conn. 2001) (reaching the merits on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

where pro se defendant filed a counterclaim).

2. Standards for Finding Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Defendant.

Due process precludes a court from asserting jurisdiction over a defendant unless the

defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state. The overriding constitutional

principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend “traditional

conception[s] of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326

U.S. 310, 320 (1945). The defendant’s “conduct and connection with the forum State” must be

such that the defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” WorldWide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). “In judging minimum contacts,

a court properly focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the

litigation.” Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S.

186, 204 (1977)).

Whether a party’s contacts with the forum are sufficient to permit the state to exercise

jurisdiction depends upon the facts of each case. Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional

de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 1980). First, Internet Archive

could assert a claim for general jurisdiction, i.e., that Shell’s contacts with the forum are

“substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” See, e.g., Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology

Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). Alternatively, Internet Archive could assert

that the Court should exercise specific jurisdiction where “the issue of whether jurisdiction will

lie turns on an evaluation of the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts in relation to the

cause of action.” See id. 

To evaluate the nature and quality of a defendant’s contacts for the purposes of specific

jurisdiction, courts use the following three-part test: (1) some action must be taken whereby the

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum,

thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws; (2) the claim must arise out

of or result from the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must

be reasonable. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); see also Cubbage v.

Merchent, 744 F.2d 665, 668 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The “purposeful availment” prong “requires that the defendant ‘have performed some

type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the

forum state.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Sinatra v. National

Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). With respect to web sites and internet

activity, the Ninth Circuit applies the “sliding scale” approach to jurisdiction utilized by the

district court in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). 

See Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997). Under this approach,

“the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly

proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the

internet.” Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 419 (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124).

“At one end of this sliding scale, the defendant conducts business transactions over the

Internet with residents of the forum. ... In such situations, jurisdiction is almost always proper,

because the defendant has asserted itself into the forum and made actual contact, often

commercial, with a forum resident. ... At the other end of the scale are ‘passive’ Web sites,

through which the defendant simply posts information to those who access the site, such as

advertisements and informational pieces about the Web site host.” Callaway Golf Corp. v.

Royal Canadian Golf Ass’n, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1202-3 (C. D. Cal. 2000) (citations and

quotations omitted); see also Stomp, Inc. v. Neato, LLC, 61 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1078 (C.D. Cal.

1999) (“personal jurisdiction is not appropriate when a website is merely ... passive ..., but is

appropriate when an entity is conducting business over the Internet”). In sum, courts look “to

the ‘level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on

the Web site’ to determine if sufficient contacts exist to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.” 

Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 419 (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124).

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

The second prong of the test for specific jurisdiction requires that “the contacts

constituting purposeful availment must be the ones that give rise to the current suit.” Bancroft

& Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000). Finally, the third

prong of the test for specific jurisdiction requires that the exercise of jurisdiction be reasonable. 

Sher, 911 F.2d at 1361.

3. The Court Grants Internet Archive’s Request for Jurisdictional Discovery.

On this record, the Court cannot determine whether Shell’s objections to the exercise of

jurisdiction are well-taken. In response to Shell’s motion to transfer this matter, Internet

Archive contends that it is entitled to conduct jurisdictional discovery to determine whether this

Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Shell. Because the Court finds this threshold

issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Internet Archive’s

request for leave to conduct expedited jurisdictional discovery. See Cubbage, 744 F.2d at 667

(holding that it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over a

defendant); see also Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285

(9th Cir. 1977) (holding that the district court may consider evidence presented in affidavits to

assist in its determination and may order discovery on the jurisdictional issues). 

In an effort to expedite the process of determining whether this Court may exercise

jurisdiction over Shell, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Internet Archive may take limited

jurisdictional discovery to be completed within the next three months, or no later than August

18, 2006. In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, the Court HEREBY REFERS any and all

potential discovery matters that may arise, including resolution of disputes regarding expedited

response times, for resolution before a randomly assigned magistrate judge. 

After completion of jurisdictional discovery, the Court will hear the parties’ positions on

the threshold issue of personal jurisdiction. By no later than August 25, 2006, Internet Archive

shall file a supplemental opposition brief setting forth its prima facie case of jurisdiction over

Shell. By no later than September 9, 2006, Shell shall file a reply brief. The Court will set a

hearing date by separate order if it deems such a hearing necessary. 

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

B. Remaining Issues.

 The Court deems the motion to transfer, the motion to dismiss and the motion to amend

to be fully briefed and ripe for decision. However, because the Court cannot yet determine

whether the exercise of jurisdiction is proper, those pending motions are HEREBY TAKEN

UNDER SUBMISSION and the Court reserves ruling pending resolution of the threshold

jurisdictional question. Shell’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot. Shell’s motion for Rule

11 sanctions is not properly noticed and must be fully briefed before it is ripe for resolution. 

Should Shell wish to pursue such sanctions after resolution of the jurisdictional issue, she must

notice such motion for hearing in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Civil

Local Rule 7-2. The Court advises Shell that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains

helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s

website or in the Clerk’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00397-JSW Document 39 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 6