Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00149-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, )

) 2:04-cv-149-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, a )

corporation; NEWMONT USA LIMITED, )

a corporation; NEWMONT NORTH )

AMERICA EXPLORATION LIMITED, a )

corporation; NEWMONT GOLD COMPANY, )

a corporation; NEWMONT NORTH )

AMERICA LIMITED, a corporation; )

NEWMONT EXPLORATION LIMITED, a )

corporation; NEW VERDE MINES LLC, )

a limited liability company; )

NEWMONT NORTH AMERICA LLC, a )

limited liability company; NEWMONT )

REALTY COMPANY, a corporation; )

NEWMONT CAPITAL LIMITED, a )

corporation; NEWMONT INTERNATIONAL )

SERVICES LIMITED, a corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants Newmont Capital Limited (“NCL”) and Newmont

International Services Limited (“NISL”) (collectively “Defendants”)

move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint against them

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 317 Filed 08/17/07 Page 1 of 5
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 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil 1

Procedure.

2

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) arguing that the Court

is without personal jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff opposes this 1

motion.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges NCL, NISL, Newmont Mining Corporation,

Newmont USA Limited, Newmont North America Exploration Limited,

Newmont Gold Company, Newmont North America Limited, Newmont

Exploration Limited, New Verde Mines LLC, Newmont North America LLC,

and Newmont Realty Company (collectively “Newmont”) owned and/or

operated the Drew Tunnel of the Massachusetts Hill Mine in Grass

Valley, California. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff further alleges

it discovered contaminated discharge which flowed from the Drew Tunnel

onto Plaintiff’s property. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that

Newmont caused Plaintiff’s property to be contaminated from this

discharge and Plaintiff seeks recovery for the damage sustained. (Id.

¶¶ 25, 32; Prayer, ¶ 4.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(2) authorizes dismissal of an action for lack of

personal jurisdiction. “[P]laintiff bears the burden of

‘demonstrat[ing] facts that if true would support [exercising]

jurisdiction over the [D]efendant.’” Cargnani v. Pewag Aus. G.m.b.H.,

2007 WL 415992, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2007). “[P]laintiff is

generally required only to make out a prima facie showing of personal

jurisdiction” to withstand dismissal. Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d

756, 766 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 317 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 5
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

The “exercise of personal jurisdiction ‘must comport with

the state long-arm statute, and with the constitutional requirements

of due process.’ [Since] California’s long-arm statute extends

jurisdiction to the limits imposed by the Due Process Clause, the only

question is whether the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutionally

permissible.” Cargnani, 2007 WL 415992, at *4 (internal citations

omitted). There are “[t]wo recognized bases . . . for [exercising]

personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants: (1) ‘general

jurisdiction’ which arises when a [D]efendant’s contacts with the

forum state are so pervasive as to justify the exercise of

jurisdiction over the person in all matters; and (2) ‘specific’ or

‘limited’ jurisdiction which arises out of the [D]efendant’s contacts

with the forum giving rise to the subject of the litigation.” Revis

v. SFG Equip. Leasing Corp., 2007 WL 926799, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27,

2007).

Defendants assert they are nonresidents of California since

they are not incorporated in California and their principal place of

business is in Colorado, and that neither general nor specific

jurisdiction exists because they do not have sufficient minimum

contacts with California to justify a California federal court

exercising jurisdiction over them. (Defs.’ Mot. at 4:10–12, 4:20-21

5:7-10.) Plaintiff rejoins “the Court need not determine whether it

has general jurisdiction over [Defendants] because [Plaintiff’s]

claims against [Defendants] arise from [Defendants’] ‘forum related

activities’ in Grass Valley” and therefore, this court has specific

jurisdiction over them. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 4:22-24.) Defendants counter

Plaintiff “fails to offer any evidence that the alleged contacts of

[Defendants] with the State of California ha[s] any relationship to

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 317 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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

the [Plaintiff’s] underlying causes of action.” (Defs.’ Reply at 2:8-

10.)

Specific jurisdiction is analyzed under a three-prong test:

(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 privileges 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.

Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d

1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). There must be “a relationship among the

[D]efendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Helicopteros Nacionales

de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). To satisfy the

second prong of the analysis the “forum-related activities [must be]

causally connected to [P]laintiff’s claims.” Ross v. Altria Group,

Inc., 2004 WL 2055712, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2004). 

Plaintiff presents no evidence that Defendants had contact

with either the Massachusetts Hill Mine or the Drew Tunnel. In

addition, Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants’ alleged contacts

with California are causally connected to the subject contaminated

discharge that allegedly damaged Plaintiff’s property. Since

Plaintiff has not presented any facts which support this court’s 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 317 Filed 08/17/07 Page 4 of 5
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

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Defendants are

dismissed from Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 317 Filed 08/17/07 Page 5 of 5