Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01118-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

The other defendants in this action, Dove Air, Inc., and 1

Joseph Duncan, have not joined in the Motion. See Motion at 1 n.

1.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORE PRODUCTS, INC.; )

formerly known as ZINKIN )

AVIATION, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

DOVE AIR, INC., a )

corporation, AVIATION )

SERVICES, INC., a )

corporation, JOSEPH DUNCAN, )

an individual, WAYNE O’BERG, )

an individual, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1118 REC DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

AVIATION SERVICES UNLIMITED

AND DEFENDANT WAYNE

O’BERG’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF PERSONAL

JURISDICTION.

(Doc. 12) 

On November 21, 2005, the Court heard the Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“the Motion”) filed by

Defendants Aviation Services Unlimited, Inc. (“ASU”), sued as

Aviation Services, Inc., and Wayne O’Berg (collectively

“Defendants”). Upon due consideration of the written and oral 1

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 30
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

2

arguments of the parties and the record herein, the Court DENIES

the Motion as set forth herein.

I. Background

Plaintiff Core Products (“Plaintiff”), headquartered in

California, purchased a Sabreliner 60 Aircraft, Model Number NA265-60 Serial Number 306-142, registered as N143DZ (the

“Aircraft”) from Dove Air, Inc., (“Dove Air”) in the summer of

2003. Dove Air is a North Carolina corporation. Zinkin Decl.

Ex. A at 12. After the sale, ASU performed maintenance on the

Aircraft at its Oklahoma facilities at the request of Dove Air. 

On August 26, 2003, Mr. O’Berg, owner and president of ASU,

signed an “Aircraft Log Book Entry” that detailed several

maintenance tasks ASU had performed. See Zinkin Decl. Ex. B at

33-36. On September 3, 2003, Mr. O’Berg signed a Work Order

indicating that ASU had repaired and inspected the Aircraft in

accordance with “The Maintenance Rules of the Federal Aviation

Regulation under which the operator is cerificated.” Id. at 37. 

After the repairs, Plaintiff received the Aircraft in

California. Some time after delivery, Plaintiff determined that

Defendants had not performed the work that the Log Book and Work

Order detailed. Plaintiff then initiated numerous communications

in writing and by telephone with Dove Air and Defendants

regarding the repairs. Plaintiff alleges that these

communications resulted in an oral agreement by Dove Air and

Joseph Duncan to compensate Defendants for maintenance necessary

to correct repairs performed improperly in 2003. Defendants also

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 30
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

3

entered an oral agreement with Plaintiff to perform certain

cosmetic repairs on the Aircraft. Plaintiff claims that

Defendants “expressly agreed” to return the Aircraft after

Plaintiff paid for the cosmetic repairs only. Compl. at 19. 

In the summer of 2005, the Aircraft returned to Oklahoma for

additional repairs. ASU performed two sets of repairs on the

Aircraft that generated two invoices. The invoice for the

cosmetic repairs totaled $6,284.95. Zinkin Decl. Ex. C at 52. 

The other invoice totaled $88,814.90. Id. at 57. Plaintiff paid

for the cosmetic repairs but not for the others. On September 9,

2005, ASU sent Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Sell Personal

Property. Buchanan Decl. Ex. A. This document indicated that

ASU planned to sell the Aircraft to pay the outstanding balance

from the repairs.

ASU is an Oklahoma corporation. Its headquarters are in

Oklahoma. It does not have a physical presence in California in

the form of incorporation, property ownership, offices, agents,

or bank accounts. It has not used California media to advertise

or used direct-mail marketing here, though ASU’s contact

information is available on two Internet listings. It has

serviced some aircraft based in California, but these repairs

were performed in Oklahoma. ASU occasionally buys parts from a

California supplier. Mr. O’Berg visited California to attend a

one-day seminar in 1997.

On September 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court

seeking rescission and restitution, and alleging

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 30
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

4

fraud/intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation,

breach of contract, breach of warranty, and conversion.

On September 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition in

Oklahoma state court seeking a declaratory judgment that

Defendants lien on the Aircraft is improper and asking the court

to order ASU not to sell the Aircraft and to return it to

Plaintiff.

On October 11, 2005, Defendants filed this Motion. 

Plaintiff filed its opposition on November 7, 2005, claiming that

Defendants are subject to general and specific jurisdiction in

California. In its opposition, Plaintiff also requested that the

Court continue the hearing on the Motion to allow it to complete

jurisdictional discovery. On November 14, Defendants filed their

reply. Defendants attached to the reply partial responses to

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional discovery requests and indicated that

they were still searching for certain requested documents. The

reply stated that the partial responses were being

contemporaneously served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not contend

at oral argument that it had been prejudiced by the incomplete

jurisdictional discovery.

Following oral argument, the Court by its order of November

22, 2005, directed the parties to submit additional briefing and

declarations regarding whether Defendants purposefully directed

tortious acts toward California. On December 2, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a supplemental brief and declaration opposing the Motion. 

On December 19, 2005, Defendants filed a supplemental brief and

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 30
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

5

declaration in support of the Motion.

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff has the burden to establish a court’s personal

jurisdiction over a defendant. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d

915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the district court rules on the

motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing, the

plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional

facts to withstand the motion. Id. This requires plaintiff to

demonstrate facts that, if true, would support jurisdiction over

defendant. Id. “Although the plaintiff cannot ‘simply rest on

the bare allegations of its complaint,’ uncontroverted

allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.”

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th

Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Conflicts between facts

contained in the parties’ affidavits are resolved in Plaintiff’s

favor. AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588

(9th Cir. 1996). “If the Court denies a Rule 12(b)(2) motion

because a prima facie case has been shown, the movant can

nevertheless put the opposing party to its proof by continuing to

contest personal jurisdiction, either at a pretrial evidentiary

hearing or at the trial itself.” ADO Fin., AG v. McDonnell

Douglas Corp., 931 F. Supp. 711, 717 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062, 1064, n. 1 (9th

Cir. 1990)). Where facts bearing on jurisdiction are

“intertwined with the merits of the action” determination of

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 5 of 30
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

6

jurisdiction at trial is preferable. Id. at 714 (citing Data

Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285-86 n. 2

(9th Cir. 1977)).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction in California, a court must consider: (1) whether a

state statute potentially confers personal jurisdiction over the

nonresident defendant, and (2) whether the exercise of

jurisdiction accords with federal constitutional principles of

due process. Congoleum Corp. v. DLW Aktiengesellschaft, 729 F.2d

1240 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285-86). 

California’s long-arm statute, California Civil Procedure Code

section 410.10, authorizes state and federal courts to exercise

personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the

Constitution. Congoleum Corp., 729 F.2d at 1241. 

Due process limitations on state power require that the

defendant have certain “minimum contacts” with the forum such

that haling it into court there “does not offend ‘traditional

notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” World-Wide

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S. Ct. 559,

62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,

326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). 

B. General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction requires both that the defendant has

the requisite contacts with the forum state and that the

assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable. Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v.

Leonis Navigation Co., 1 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 6 of 30
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

7

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S. Ct.

1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987)). Where defendant’s contacts with

the forum are sufficient to establish general jurisdiction,

personal jurisdiction lies even for causes of action unrelated to

the defendant’s activities in the forum. Data Disc, 557 F.2d at

1287 (quoting Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S.

437, 446-47, 72 S. Ct. 413, 96 L. Ed. 485 (1952)). 

General jurisdiction is only appropriate where the

nonresident defendant’s activities in the forum state are

“‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic.’” Bancroft &

Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th

Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit “regularly [has] declined to find

general jurisdiction even where the contacts were quite

extensive.” Amoco Egypt, 1 F.3d at 851 n. 3. The nonresident

defendant’s contacts must be so thorough that they “approximate

physical presence” in the forum. Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at

1086.

Plaintiff argues that general jurisdiction is appropriate in

this case because Defendants have business-related contacts with

California, such as sales of its services to California residents

and promotional activities directed at the California market. 

Plaintiff points out that ASU’s contact information is listed in

two Internet directories. See Zinkin Decl. Ex. D at 59, Ex. F at

67. Advertising in the forum is not sufficient to subject a

defendant to general jurisdiction there. Cubbage v. Merchent,

744 F.2d 665, 668-69 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that yellow page

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 7 of 30
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

8

advertisement published in the forum did not establish general

personal jurisdiction absent more substantial contacts, such as

residence, licensing, or incorporation in the forum); Bancroft &

Masters, 223 F.3d at 1086 (holding insufficient “passive” Web

site coupled with occasional sales to forum customers). The

general jurisdiction inquiry focuses on the degree to which

Defendants have “purposefully availed” themselves of the

privilege of conducting business in the forum. World-Wide

Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297.

The facts here are weaker than those in cases that the Ninth

Circuit has found insufficient to establish general jurisdiction.

Defendants contend that they did not request that their

information be included in the online listings. O’Berg Supp.

Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 13. Plaintiff does not present facts to the

contrary. The mere appearance of ASU’s contact information on an

online listing accessible in the forum does not establish

purposeful availment. In Cubbage and Bancroft & Masters, the

defendants were not subject to general jurisdiction even though

they undertook intentional acts to advertise in the forum: 

taking out a yellow page ad and creating and hosting a Web site. 

Cubbage, 744 F.2d at 668-69; Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at

1086. 

Plaintiff also argues that the “nature of the business of

aircraft servicing, and the mobility of aircraft” make

Defendants’ venture an interstate business that participates in

transactions involving California residents. Opp’n at 5. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 8 of 30
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

9

Plaintiff’s argument that the mobility of aircraft militates in

favor of general jurisdiction is misguided. The Supreme Court in

World-Wide Volkswagen has already rejected such a mobile-chattels

based argument. 444 U.S. at 295-97. The plaintiffs in that case

argued that defendant, a regional distributor of automobiles in

New York, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma

because it could foresee that automobiles it sold would cause

injury in that forum. Id. at 295. The Court rejected that

theory, focusing instead on defendant’s conduct and connection

with the forum state to determine whether it could reasonably

anticipate being sued there. Id. at 297. 

That aircraft tend to move from state to state does not

render Defendants’ operation “an interstate business” subject to

jurisdiction wherever the aircraft it services fly. If this

theory of jurisdiction were the law, every seller of mobile

chattels would “in effect appoint the chattel his agent for

service of process.” Id. at 296. The focus must instead be on

Defendants’ conduct and connections to the forum. Defendants

know that aircrafts they service occasionally travel to

California. This fact does not indicate that Defendants have

purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing

business in California.

Though Defendants’ discovery responses are as yet

incomplete, other potential contacts with California do not seem

sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. One of Defendants’

discovery responses indicates that they purchase parts from D.K.

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 9 of 30
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

10

Turbines, which is apparently located in California. Buchanan

Supp. Decl. Ex. B at 4. Mr. O’Berg also attended a seminar in

San Diego around 1997. Even substantial purchases of goods in

the forum do not support personal jurisdiction for causes of

action unrelated to those purchases. Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 411, 416, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L.

Ed. 2d 404 (1984) (holding insufficient defendant’s $4 million in

purchases in the forum over several years, including helicopters

amounting to approximately 80 percent of defendant’s fleet, spare

parts, and accessories). In Helicopteros Nacionales, training of

multiple employees in the forum did not establish general

jurisdiction. 466 U.S. at 411 (holding general jurisdiction

improper where defendant sent pilots to forum for training and

sent management and maintenance personnel to forum for technical

consulting). Thus, even significant purchases of parts or

training in the forum are insufficient to establish general

jurisdiction.

Defendants have also serviced in Oklahoma two aircraft based

in California. Id. at 3. That ASU only performs repairs in

Oklahoma “should not be disregarded lightly.” See Dalton v. R &

W Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1362 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that

general jurisdiction did not lie even though 12.9 percent of

defendant’s revenues were from sales to the forum because

defendant “exercise[d] its due process rights” by ensuring that

the contracts were entered and payment remitted outside of the

forum only); Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325,

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 10 of 30
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

11

1330-31 (9th Cir. 1984) (no jurisdiction over defendants despite

several visits to and purchases in forum, solicitation of

contract in forum which included choice-of-law provision favoring

forum, and extensive communication with forum). Sales to forum

residents coupled with marketing activities there do not

necessarily establish general jurisdiction over a defendant who

provides a service outside of the forum. Shute v. Carnival

Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1990), rev’d on other

grounds, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1991)

(no general jurisdiction where 1 percent of defendant’s sales of

cruises were in forum and defendant used local media, direct-mail

advertising, and promotional seminars there).

Defendants’ contacts with California appear to be quite

meager. Defendants are not California residents, are not

licensed to do business in California, are not incorporated in

California, and have not perform any services here. See Cubbage,

744 F.2d at 667-68. The Court finds that Defendants’

miscellaneous and unintentional connections with California are

far from sufficient to constitute a prima facie case for general

jurisdiction. 

C. Specific Jurisdiction

A defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction only when

each of three elements exist: (1) the “nonresident defendant

must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of

conducting activities in the forum by some affirmative act or

conduct, (2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or result from

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 11 of 30
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

12

the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of

jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942

F.2d 617, 620-21 (9th Cir. 1991).

1. Purposeful Availment or Purposeful Direction

Courts use the phrase “purposeful availment” as shorthand to

refer to both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The purposeful availment prong

is satisfied where the nonresident defendant has “purposely

availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within

the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of

its laws” or has purposefully directed its activities toward the

forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.

Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985); Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303

F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts generally use a

purposeful availment analysis for suits sounding in contract and

purposeful direction analysis for suits sounding in tort. 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

a. Purposeful Availment 

The Court evaluates its jurisdiction over the contract

claims under a purposeful availment analysis. Plaintiff claims

that specific jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have

purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing

business in California by entering a contract with a forum

resident. The mere existence of a contract between a defendant

and a forum resident does not automatically establish sufficient

minimum contacts with the forum. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 12 of 30
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

13

To determine whether a contract can establish the minimum

contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction, a court should

consider “prior negotiations and contemplated future

consequences, along with the parties’ actual course of dealing.” 

Id. at 479. 

In Burger King, defendant, a Michigan resident, applied to

become a franchisee with plaintiff fast-food chain, headquartered

in Florida. Id. at 466. Defendant negotiated the terms of the

deal with the district office in Michigan and with the Florida

headquarters. Id. at 467. The final agreement obligated

defendant to a series of payments exceeding $1 million. Id. 

Pursuant to the franchise agreement, defendant would receive the

right to use plaintiff’s trademarks, a lease of standardized

restaurant facilities, a variety of proprietary information, and

other franchise-related services. Id. at 464-65. This agreement

placed defendant in a “carefully structured 20-year relationship

that envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts” with

plaintiff in the forum state. Id. at 480. The Court concluded

that this contractual relationship established defendant’s

minimum contacts because it showed that defendant had

“deliberately ‘reach[ed] out beyond’” its home state to obtain

the benefits of doing business with a forum resident. Id. at 479. 

The “quality and nature” of defendant’s relationship to plaintiff

indicated that his connections to the forum were not “‘random,’

‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated.’” Id. at 480 (quoting Hanson v.

Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 13 of 30
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

14

(1958)). Merely providing a service outside of the forum that

can harm a forum resident does not establish minimum contacts

without a affirmative attempt to promote business within the

forum. See, e.g., Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d

758, 761 (9th Cir. 1990) (out-of-state broker of used food

processing equipment); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th

Cir. 1990) (out-of-state legal representation). 

Plaintiff does not contend that the 2003 repairs were

completed pursuant to a contract between Defendants and

Plaintiff. It appears that Dove Air arranged for this first

round of repairs. Plaintiff does contend that Defendants created

“continuing obligations” to Plaintiff when it “warranted its work

in 2003 by signing the aircraft certification statement.” Opp’n

at 9. Since Defendants knew the Aircraft would be transported to

a customer in California, Plaintiff argues, it knowingly created

an obligation to a forum resident. 

Plaintiff and Defendants did not negotiate with each other

prior to the point when Defendants first serviced the plane and

it was delivered to Plaintiff. It appears that prior to

delivery, Defendants dealt exclusively with Dove Air. Nor does

it appear that Defendants by making a log-book entry that stated

the craft was airworthy contemplated anything like a “carefully

structured” or “continuing” relationship. See Burger King, 471

U.S. at 480. That Defendants were not part of the initial

contract with Plaintiff but were merely performing a service for

a third party counsels against a finding of minimum contacts. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 14 of 30
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

15

Lafarge Corp. v. Altech Envtl. USA, 220 F. Supp 823, 829 (E.D.

Mich. 2002) (insufficient contacts where defendant supplied

component parts for the party who contracted with plaintiff to

install the completed monitoring system). At best, Plaintiff was

a third-party beneficiary of a contract between Dove Air and

Defendants. See Cleveland v. Dyn-A-Mite Pest Control, Inc., 57

P.3d 119, 126 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (holding obligor owed duty

to nonparty to a contract where contract was for benefit of the

nonparty that detrimentally relied on contract). The

circumstances of the representations of airworthiness in 2003 do

not indicate that Defendants reached out to California to create

a contractual relationship with a forum resident.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ conduct in

connection with the 2005 repairs demonstrates purposeful

availment on which the Court can base personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “conspired with Dove Air, Inc.

and Joseph Duncan to cause the aircraft to be transported to

Oklahoma in an effort to cover up the insufficient,

misrepresented repairs and maintenance of 2003.” Opp’n at 9. 

Furthermore, Defendants allegedly “induced” plaintiff to

transport the Aircraft to Oklahoma. Id. Defendants then entered

into “an express verbal agreement” with Plaintiff to perform

certain cosmetic services to the Aircraft. Defendants

misrepresented the terms of servicing the Aircraft, according to

Plaintiff. 

Focusing on Defendants’ conduct toward the forum, the facts

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 15 of 30
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

16

before the Court do not show that Defendants reached out to the

forum in connection with the 2005 repairs. Apart from a

conclusory allegation that Defendants conspired with Dove Air,

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants induced Dove Air to

solicit Plaintiff’s business or otherwise undertook to obtain

Plaintiff’s business. Plaintiff did not send the plane to

Oklahoma in response to Defendants actions such as advertising,

solicitation, or any other affirmative conduct by Defendants. 

See Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (“There is no ‘substantial connection’

with California because neither the partnership nor any of its

partners undertook any affirmative action to promote business

within California.”); Gray, 913 F.2d at 760 (single transaction

with forum resident was inadequate where defendants had not ever

“sought or done business in” the forum). Plaintiff does not

present facts that support an alternative to Defendants’

inference that Dove Air and Plaintiff, without input or urging

from Defendants, decided in the course of their negotiations to

return the plane to Defendants for service. Incidental

communications that Defendants initiated with Plaintiff in the

forum after Plaintiff solicited their services do not support

personal jurisdiction. Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (defendant’s phone

calls and letters to and acceptance of payment from forum were

“normal incidents” of the business relationship that do not

evince “the deliberate creation of a ‘substantial connection’”

with the forum in the absence of “affirmative action to promote

business in the forum”). 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 16 of 30
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

17

Plaintiff contends that after it requested Defendants make

additional repairs, Defendant agreed to return the Aircraft after

Plaintiff paid for the cosmetic repairs, regardless of whether a

balance remained. Since Plaintiff had already contacted

Defendants to perform this second round of repairs, this alleged

agreement does not amount to an affirmative attempt to solicit

business in the forum. Rather this agreement was merely part of

negotiations pertaining to a contract to be performed in

Oklahoma.

As mentioned above, the marketing efforts that Plaintiff

points out — the online listings — do not evince purposeful

availment. Plaintiff does not allege facts contrary to

Defendants’ averment that they did not cause the listings to be

made available.

Under the purposeful availment analysis, Defendants did not

reach out to the forum to create minimum contacts sufficient to

support personal jurisdiction.

b. Purposeful Direction

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants committed the

torts of intentional misrepresentation and conversion. Courts

analyze the purposeful direction of intentional torts under the

“effects” test. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482,

79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984). The effects test dictates that the

purposeful availment requirement is met where defendant has “(1)

committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum

state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 17 of 30
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

18

suffered in the forum state.” Dole, 303 F.3d at 1111.

i. Intentional Misrepresentation 

(a) Intentional Act

Plaintiff alleges Defendants directed acts toward the forum

that amount to intentional misrepresentation and satisfy the

first requirement. In 2003, Defendants provided to Plaintiff

maintenance books, records, and other documents that indicated

that the Aircraft “was in a fully operational airworthy

condition.” Compl. at 14. Defendants did so, Plaintiff claims,

with the intent to induce Plaintiff to conclude the sale of the

Aircraft. Id. Plaintiff included with its supplemental briefing

a declaration of Tim Hawkins, who piloted the Aircraft for

Plaintiff. Mr. Hawkins points, in his declaration, to certain

problems with the Aircraft after delivery: “an incorrect brake

assembly, fuel tank leakage, autopilot disengagement in flight,

and worn engine igniters, among others.” Hawkins Decl. at ¶ 5. 

Mr. Hawkins also states, 

Mr. O’Berg told me in that phone conversation

that he was aware there were airworthiness

problems that had not been corrected before

delivery of the aircraft to Fresno and that

he had let the aircraft go out anyway knowing

that the work was not finished because Joe

Duncan told him he was not going to pay for

all that work to be done.

Hawkins Decl. at ¶ 7. This statement establishes that Defendants

were aware of airworthiness problems despite their

representations to the contrary in the Aircraft Log Book Entry

and Work Order.

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 18 of 30
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

19

Defendants point to a number of facts in the record that it

claims show that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie

showing of jurisdictional facts. Defendants argue that

Plaintiff’s long-term use of the Aircraft and failure to complain

about the defects in earlier communications discredit Mr.

Hawkins’s claim. Though Plaintiff’s use of the Aircraft without

complaint could give rise to an inference that it was not

defective, that evidence does not impair Plaintiff’s prima facie

showing of jurisdictional facts. 

Defendants argue that they signed off on the fuel tank

repair in a work order subsequent to the initial Work Order of

September 3, 2003. Defendants claim that a subsequent work order

“involved delivery by ASU to a nearby Oklahoma location for

replacement of the forward fuel tank, which was leaking.” Defs.’

Supp. Br. at 4. Plaintiff therefore received possession of the

Aircraft only after the fuel tank issue had been remedied,

Defendants argue. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants

misrepresented the airworthiness of the fuel tank does not fail

merely because another work order followed the work order that

Plaintiff mentioned in its papers. Plaintiff’s Complaint

contends that “various maintenance books, records and other

documents” falsely indicated that the Aircraft was airworthy. 

Compl. at 14. Thus the claim potentially encompasses any

misrepresentations in the Work Order of September 17, 2003,

wherein Defendants certified the airworthiness of the Aircraft

following the fuel tank repairs. Defendants concede that the

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 19 of 30
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

20

fuel tank was still malfunctioning after the latter work order

according to a letter Mr. O’Berg sent to Joe Duncan on November

10, 2003. 2d Supp. O’Berg Decl. Ex. F at 1.

Defendants claim that one problem Mr. Hawkins mentions does

not affect airworthiness. Defendants claim that engine igniters

do not impact airworthiness because they only operate on the

ground, not in flight. Defendants do not contend that the other

problems Plaintiff alleges — a leaking fuel tank, improper brake

assembly, or autopilot disengagement in flight — do not affect

airworthiness. 

Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has failed to

identify any financial harm it suffered because of the alleged

intentional misrepresentation. See Bldg. Permit Consultants,

Inc. v. Mazur, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1400, 1415 (2004) (“actionable

deceit also requires damages resulting from reliance on a

misrepresentation”). Defendants point out that Plaintiff has

paid nothing to Defendants for the repair services. A party may

be liable for intentional misrepresentation regardless of whether

it owns the property that it misrepresents or benefits from the

misrepresentation. Swasey v. De L’Etanche, 17 Cal. App. 2d 713,

718 (1936) (citing Ackerman v. Schultz, 178 Cal. 190 (1918)); 5

Witkin Sum. Cal. Law Torts § 772(2) (10th ed. 2005). Plaintiff

claims that it was damaged by paying money for an aircraft that

was not airworthy and by being deprived of the use of the

Aircraft. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient

to support a finding that it suffered financial harm.

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 20 of 30
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

21

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, the Court will

resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of Plaintiff. See

AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588; ADO Fin., 931 F. Supp. at 718 (declining to

weigh defendants’ evidence where plaintiff presented substantial

evidence supporting jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s allegations and

affidavits establish that the Aircraft did not function in an

airworthy manner as Defendants had specified. Mr. O’Berg

admitted to Mr. Hawkins that the Aircraft was not airworthy when

he certified it as such. The requirement that Plaintiff merely

make a prima facie showing means that Defendants may not “obtain

a dismissal simply by controverting the facts established by a

plaintiff through his own affidavits and supporting materials.” 

Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285. Accordingly, the Court will not

weigh Plaintiff’s evidence against Defendants’. Moreover, the

facts which support jurisdiction based on the intentional

misrepresentation claim are intertwined with the merits of the

case, making disposition at trial more appropriate. See ADO

Fin., 931 F. Supp. at 714. The Court holds that Plaintiff has

presented a prima facie case that Mr. O’Berg’s representations of

airworthiness comprise an intentional tortious act.

(b) Aimed at the Forum

An intentional act is expressly aimed at the forum when

“‘the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct

targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident

of the forum state.’” Dole, 303 F.3d at 1111 (quoting Bancroft &

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 21 of 30
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

22

Masters, 223 F.3d at 1087). Where a defendant’s alleged acts

were “‘performed for the very purpose of having their

consequences felt in the forum state,’” the express aiming

requirement is met. Dole, 303 F.3d at 1112 (quoting Brainerd v.

Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 1989)). “The inducement of reliance in California is a

sufficient act within California to satisfy the requirement of

minimum contacts where the cause of action arises out of that

inducement.” Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1288; see Wien Air Alaska,

Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 1999) (purposeful

availment requirement satisfied where foreign attorney made

fraudulent misrepresentations to client in the forum in letters,

faxes, and phone calls).

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants intentionally

misrepresented the airworthiness of the Aircraft to induce

Plaintiff to complete the purchase evinces conduct targeted at

Plaintiff in the forum. Defendants allege that those who perform

the repairs and complete the logs generally are unaware of the

destination of aircraft. O’Berg Supp. Decl. at ¶ 14. Mr. O’Berg

further declares, “As an aircraft maintenance facility, we would

not have any reason to care where the aircraft is taken after it

leaves our facility because by that time all of our work will

have been completed and we will have been paid.” 2d Supp. O’Berg

Decl. Tellingly, Mr. O’Berg does not contend he was unaware that

the Aircraft’s owner resided in California, or that the effects

of a misrepresentation in the log book would be felt there. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 22 of 30
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

23

Since Defendants do not controvert Plaintiff’s allegation that

they knew that Plaintiff would rely on the misrepresentation in

California, the Court takes the allegation as true for the

purposes of this motion. The Court finds that Defendants alleged

intentional misrepresentation was aimed at California.

(c) Harm in the Forum

The Ninth Circuit has not decided the degree of harm that a

defendant must cause in the forum to meet the effects test. 

Dole, 303 F.3d at 1112-13. A line of Ninth Circuit authority

requires that “the brunt of the harm” occur within the forum

state. See id. at 1112; Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11

F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1993). These cases appear to be in

tension with a Supreme Court holding that any significant amount

of harm in the forum is sufficient. See Keeton v. Hustler

Magazine, 465 U.S. 770, 772-73, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790, 104 S. Ct. 1473

(1984); Dole, 303 F.3d at 1113. Here, as in Dole, the Court need

not decide between these standards because under either standard,

the harm Plaintiff suffered in California is sufficient. See

Dole, 303 F.3d at 1113.

A plaintiff corporation suffers economic harm at its

principal place of business. Id. at 1114. Here, Plaintiff is

located in California and alleges that Defendants induced it to

buy a plane that was not airworthy. Plaintiff suffered

essentially all of the harm in the forum state, at its

headquarters. The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged

sufficient harm in the forum to establish purposeful availment. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 23 of 30
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

24

ii. Conversion

(a) Intentional Act

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants’ alleged conversion of

the Aircraft amounts to an intentionally tortious act that

supports jurisdiction. Before Plaintiff returned the Aircraft to

Oklahoma for the 2005 repairs, Defendants allegedly “expressly

agreed” to return the Aircraft after Plaintiff paid for the

cosmetic repairs. Compl. at 19. Plaintiff claims that

Defendants induced it to return the Aircraft to Oklahoma under

those agreed upon terms. Defendants do not present facts that

controvert Plaintiff’s allegations that they made such an

agreement or that they did so to induce Plaintiff to deliver them

the Aircraft. 

(b) Aimed at the Forum

Defendants contend that this claim cannot be a basis for

jurisdiction in California because the tort of conversion is

aimed at the property and not the owner, citing Farmers Insurance

Exchange v. Zerin, 53 Cal. App. 4th 445, 451 (1997). “The legal

injury occasioned by the tort of conversion is deemed to occur

where the actual conversion takes place.” United States v. Swiss

Am. Bank, Ltd., 191 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing Cycles,

Ltd. v. W.J. Digby, Inc., 889 F.2d 612, 619 (5th Cir. 1989)). 

Even where a defendant has reached out to the forum and made

a misrepresentation in connection with the conversion,

jurisdiction is not proper where the conversion occurred outside

of the forum. Callahan v. Harvest Bd. Int’l, Inc., 138 F. Supp.

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 24 of 30
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

25

2d 147, 164 (D. Mass. 2001). In Callahan, the plaintiff

attorney, who held a judgment against a deceased client, sued to

recover on promissory notes defendant had issued to decedent that

defendant now refused to pay. Id. at 154. Plaintiff alleged the

tort of conversion based on defendant’s refusal to pay on the

notes. Id. at 164. Plaintiff argued that personal jurisdiction

was proper based on a letter from defendant that falsely

represented that debtor entity did not exist. Id. The court

held that the letter was insufficient to establish jurisdiction

in the forum because conversion is deemed to occur only where the

conversion takes place. Id. (citing Swiss Am., 191 F.3d at 37).

Here, the conversion took place, if at all, in Oklahoma

where the Aircraft was located when the Defendants refused to

release it. Any actions toward California that Defendants took

to induce Plaintiff to transport the Aircraft to Oklahoma do not

provide a basis for personal jurisdiction here. The Court holds

that Plaintiff’s conversion claim does not allege tortious

activity aimed at the forum. Consequently, this claim does not

provide a basis for jurisdiction over Defendants on a purposeful

direction theory.

2. Relationship Between Lawsuit and Defendants 

California Activities

The Ninth Circuit employs a “but for” test to determine

whether a claim arises from forum-related activities. Ballard v.

Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995). The question is

whether, but for Defendants’ contacts with California,

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 25 of 30
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

26

Plaintiff’s claims would have arisen. The Court concludes that,

but for Defendants alleged misrepresentations to Plaintiff in

California, its claim for intentional misrepresentation would not

have arisen.

3. Reasonableness

The Ninth Circuit has listed seven factors to balance to

determine whether jurisdiction is reasonable: 

the extent of purposeful interjection, the

burden on the defendant to defend the suit in

the chosen forum, the extent of conflict with

the sovereignty of the defendant’s state, the

forum state’s interest in the dispute; the

most efficient forum for judicial resolution

of the dispute; the importance of the chosen

forum to the plaintiff’s interest in

convenient and effective relief; and the

existence of an alternative forum.

Amoco Egypt, 1 F.3d at 851. Once a court has decided that the

defendant has minimum contacts with the forum, the defendant

bears the burden to “‘present a compelling case’ that the

exercise of jurisdiction would, in fact, be unreasonable.” Id.

at 851-52 (quoting Shute, 897 F.2d at 386 (quoting Burger King,

471 U.S. at 477)). 

a. Extent of Purposeful Interjection

Plaintiff has made a prima facie case that Defendants

reached out to California and committed an intentional tort. 

Defendants’ alleged intentional misrepresentation to Plaintiff of

the airworthiness of the Aircraft shows purposeful interjection

in the forum. This factor weighs heavily in favor of

jurisdiction in California. 

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 26 of 30
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

b. Burden on Defendants

Each party would be burdened by litigation away from its

home court. This is because some of the witnesses for each party 

reside close to its headquarters. Wherever this case is

litigated, witnesses and attorneys will have to travel for

depositions and for trial. This factor does not weigh in favor

of or or against jurisdiction.

c. Sovereignty of Defendants’ State

Defendants argue that, under federal law, remedies and

rights available to repair facilities are made a local concern. 

See 49 U.S.C. § 44108(c). This provision, however, dictates only

the choice-of-law rules for disputes concerning repair, and says

nothing about the state’s interest in the dispute. The

soverignty factor is unimportant where both parties are United

States entities. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. In such a

case, choice-of-law rules can accommodate the social policies of

another state. Id. Simply adjudicating Oklahoma contract law 

in a California federal court does not infringe Oklahoma’s

sovereignty. This factor does not weigh against the

reasonableness jurisdiction here.

d. Forum State’s Interest

California has some interest in protecting residents who

contract with out-of-state parties for services outside the

state. It also has some interest in the safety of aircraft based

here. Oklahoma has an interest in regulating those who repair

aircraft there and in enforcing the agreements they make. This

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 27 of 30
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

28

factor does not weigh against jurisdiction in California.

e. Most Efficient Resolution

As discussed above, the location of witnesses and evidence

gives rise to plausible arguments both for litigation in

California and in Oklahoma. This factor does not indicate

jurisdiction in California is unreasonable.

f. Convenient and Effective Relief for Plaintiff

It would be easier for Plaintiff to litigate in California,

nearer to its headquarters. However, dismissing the case in

favor of Oklahoma would not prevent Plaintiff from obtaining

relief. This factor does not weigh for or against jurisdiction

in California.

g. Existence of Alternative Forum 

A suit involving Plaintiff and ASU regarding ASU’s attempted

sale of the Aircraft is currently pending before a court in

Oklahoma. See Buchanan Decl. Ex. B. It is not clear from the

record whether Plaintiff could raise its intentional

misrepresentation claim in that proceeding. The existence of an

alternative forum weighs slightly against California

jurisdiction, but is not dispositive.

h. Balancing the Factors

None of the factors weighs heavily against jurisdiction in

California. On the other hand, the alleged intentional acts of

Defendants amount to purposeful interjection that weighs heavily

in favor of jurisdiction. Defendants have not made a

“compelling” showing that California would be an unreasonable

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 28 of 30
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

29

forum to make personal jurisdiction inappropriate. See Amoco

Egypt, 1 F.3d at 851-52.

Accordingly, the Court holds that personal jurisdiction over

Defendants is appropriate with respect to the intentional

misrepresentation claim. 

D. Pendent Personal Jurisdiction

Where a district court has jurisdiction over certain claims

against a party, but not others, it has discretion to exercise

pendent personal jurisdiction over the other claims. CE

Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.

2004) (district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction

over contract claim based on personal jurisdiction over

intentional tort claim). A court may require a party to defend a

claim that lacks an independent basis of personal jurisdiction if

it “‘arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts with a

claim in the same suit over which the court does have personal

jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Action Embroidery v. Atl.

Embroidery, 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Of the eight causes of action that Plaintiff pleads, four

are against ASU and Mr. O’Berg: the Third Cause of Action for

Intentional Misrepresentation, the Fourth Cause of Action for

Negligent Misrepresentation, the Seventh Cause of Action for

Breach of Oral Contract for Repairs, and the Eighth Cause of

Action for Conversion. Defendants’ alleged intentional acts

toward the forum establish personal jurisdiction over it for the

intentional misrepresentation claim only. This claim and the

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 29 of 30
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

30

other claims, however, arise out of a common nucleus of fact. 

All concern communications and other conduct surrounding

Defendants’ repairs of the Aircraft. The intentional

misrepresentation claim, like the other claims, depends on

whether the repairs of the Aircraft were properly completed. 

Therefore, “[w]hether to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction

is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” CE

Distrib., 380 F.3d at 1113.

Considerations of “judicial economy, avoidance of piecemeal

litigation, and overall convenience of the parties” are served by

retaining jurisdiction over the all of the claims against

Defendants. See Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery,

Inc., 368 F.3d at 1181. Otherwise Plaintiff and Defendants would

be faced with the possibility of a two-front litigation war, with

certain claims remaining before this Court and other claims

pending elsewhere. If the Court grants jurisdiction and the

intentional misrepresentation claim ultimately fails as a matter

of law, the remaining claims may then be dismissed for lack of

personal jurisdiction. See Rosenberg v. Seattle Art Museum, 42

F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1038 (W.D. Wash. 1994).

ACCORDINGLY, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01118-DLB Document 74 Filed 01/05/06 Page 30 of 30