Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01694/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01694-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERIC M. WRIGHT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIDNEY W. JACKSON, III, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION [Doc. 12] TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. (MTD [Doc. 12].) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), 

the Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD Document 16 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

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

I. BACKGROUND

This case is a malpractice claim brought by California based plaintiffs 

(“Plaintiffs”) against an Alabama based attorney named Sidney W. Jackson III 

(“Jackson”) who Plaintiffs engaged to represent them in litigation that took place in 

Florida. In addition to Jackson, Plaintiffs have named as defendants Jackson’s law firm

and two Florida based court reporters who recorded depositions taken in Florida. 

One of Jackson’s colleagues referred Plaintiffs to him. In the course of 

representing Plaintiffs, Jackson emailed them a retainer agreement and sent and received 

emails, phone calls, and physical mail to and from California. Plaintiffs do not allege any 

additional contacts with California undertaken by Jackson or any of the other defendants 

in this action. Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. (MTD [Doc. 12].) Plaintiffs oppose. (Opp’n [Doc. 14.) 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Where a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, it “is the 

plaintiff’s burden to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” Doe v. 

Unocal, 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Cubbage v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665, 

667 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 470 U.S. 1005 (1985)). To withstand a motion to 

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff need only demonstrate facts that, if 

true, would support jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. Although the plaintiff cannot 

“simply rest on the bare allegations of the complaint,” uncontroverted allegations 

contained in the complaint must be taken as true. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 

Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, conflicts between the parties 

contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.

A district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if a statute 

authorizes jurisdiction and the assertion of jurisdiction does not offend due process. 

Unocal, 248 F.3d at 922. “Where . . . there is no applicable federal statute governing 

personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in which the district 

Case 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD Document 16 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

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

court sits.” Yahoo! Inc., v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 

1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(a). Because California’s 

long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due-process requirements, the jurisdictional 

analyses under state and federal law are the same. Yahoo!, Inc., 433 F.3d at 1205; Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.

Absent traditional bases for personal jurisdiction (i.e. physical presence, domicile, 

and consent), the Due Process Clause requires that a nonresident defendant have certain 

minimum contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction 

does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Int’l Shoe Co. v. 

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Accordingly, where, as here, there is no physical 

presence, domicile, or consent, jurisdiction exists only if: (1) the defendant purposefully 

availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum or purposely directs 

his activities at the forum; (2) the claim arises out of the defendant’s forum related 

activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial 

justice, i.e., it is reasonable. See Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 

1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Cybershell, Inc. v. Cybershell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 417 

(9th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test. 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. If plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both prongs, the 

burden shifts to the defendant to present a “compelling case” that the exercise of 

jurisdiction would not be reasonable. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

The purposeful availment prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis is dispositive 

here.1

 “Purposeful availment requires that the defendant have performed some type of 

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

 

1 For this reason, the Court need not reach Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) argument. 

Case 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD Document 16 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

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

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

and quotation marks omitted). Defendants cite to Sher for the proposition that their 

contacts with California are insufficient to constitute purposeful availment. 

In Sher, a California resident named Sher contacted a Florida based attorney to 

represent him in litigation in Florida. Sher, 911 F.2d at 1360. During the course of this 

litigation, Sher executed a retainer agreement in California; the Florida based attorney 

made and received phone calls and physical mailings to and from California; and the 

attorney made three trips to California. Id. Sher later filed a malpractice claim in the 

Central District of California against the Florida attorney based on that attorney’s 

representation of him in the Florida litigation. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district 

court’s dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that these contacts with 

California did not amount to purposeful availment. Id. at 1366.

Here, the only contacts Plaintiffs allege Defendants made with California consist 

of the following: (1) Defendant Jackson forwarded via email to Plaintiff, who was in 

California at the time, an Attorney Representation Agreement and (2) Defendants sent 

and received some calls, emails, and physical mail to and from Plaintiff while Plaintiff 

was in California. These facts are identical to those of Sher except that, unlike in Sher, 

Defendants here never made physical trips to California. Because the present facts are 

thus weaker than those found insufficient by the Ninth Circuit in Sher to constitute 

purposeful availment, it follows that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

Jackson. Because Plaintiffs do not allege that the other defendants made more substantial 

contacts with California than did Jackson, the Court finds it also lacks personal 

jurisdiction over them. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD Document 16 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 22, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01694-L-MDD Document 16 Filed 05/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5