Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00951/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00951-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARISTA MUSIC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RADIONOMY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00951-RS 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO CONDUCT 

LIMITED DISCOVERY

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs (collectively “Sony Music”) are various entities that own the copyrights to 

numerous audio and visual works. Sony Music contends defendants Radionomy, Inc., Radionomy 

S.A., and Radionomy Group B.V. have continuously violated copyright law by performing and 

displaying copyrighted works without permission at the behest of defendant Alexandre 

Saboundjian, the Radionomy entities’ CEO. Radionomy Group and Saboundjian are citizens of 

the Netherlands and Belgium respectively. They move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against them 

for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). 

Radionomy, Inc., and Radionomy S.A., on the other hand, agree this court has jurisdiction over 

them. Saboundjian and Radionomy Group also seek dismissal of Sony Music’s claims pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b) this matter is suitable for disposition without oral 

argument.

Sony Music submitted a substantive opposition to these motions to dismiss, but also 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

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

Northern District of California

requests permission to conduct limited discovery to develop further the record establishing 

personal jurisdiction. Because Sony Music has “come forward with some evidence tending to 

establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant[s],” its request for expedited, limited discovery 

is granted. Mitan v. Feeney, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Defendants’ motions to dismiss are therefore denied without prejudice to their 

right to renew their challenges after the limited period of discovery.

II. BACKGROUND

Radionomy Group is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the

Netherlands. Radionomy S.A. and Radionomy, Inc., are Radionomy Group’s direct and indirect 

subsidiaries: Radionomy Group owns 99% of Belgium-based Radionomy S.A., which wholly 

owns Radionomy, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Until early 2016, Radionomy, Inc., maintained its 

principal place of business and headquarters in San Francisco, California.

The Radionomy entities offer an online music platform on their website, 

www.radionomy.com, and through other online services, such as TuneIn.com. The platform 

allows users to listen to music and to create and customize online stations for streaming music. 

Through this service, users can program stations with copies of sound recordings they own and

upload or sound recordings available in Radionomy’s online music library. Users may then 

stream these collections over the Internet. Radionomy’s music library contains hundreds, if not 

thousands, of Sony Music’s copyrighted sound recordings and album art. Radionomy currently 

does not have licenses or authorization to reproduce, publicly to perform, and/or to display Sony 

Music’s copyrighted works in the United States. Moreover, Radionomy has refused Sony Music’s

requests and demands to remove the infringing works from Radionomy’s service and to cease the 

service that allows users to stream or to display Sony Music’s copyrighted works.

Saboundjian, the CEO and founder of all three Radionomy entities, is a citizen and resident 

of Belgium. He and three other people founded Radionomy in Europe in 2007, and the service 

launched operations in the United States from its San Francisco headquarters in 2012. In early 

2013, Radionomy, Inc. was formed and registered to do business in the State of California. When 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

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

Northern District of California

Radionomy, Inc., established its corporate headquarters in San Francisco, it filed papers with the 

California Secretary State, identifying Saboundjian as its agent for service of process in California. 

In March 2013, Saboundjian became CEO of Radionomy, Inc. Saboundjian admits that he visited 

Radionomy’s San Francisco headquarters on multiple occasions, indicating that over the past five 

years he has traveled to California once or twice a year to transact business.1 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) authorizes motions to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant may exist if the defendant’s 

contacts with the forum are “so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the 

forum State” (general jurisdiction), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014) (internal 

quotation marks omitted), or minimum contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of 

jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice” (specific jurisdiction), 

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1946) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Fairness requires that a court exercise jurisdiction only if the “the defendant’s conduct and 

connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into 

court there.” World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).

Where there is no federal statute applicable to determine personal jurisdiction, a district 

court should apply the law of the state where the court sits. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 

Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)). “California’s long-arm 

statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements. Id. at 800-01. It permits the 

“exercise of jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the 

United States.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 410.10.

If a defendant challenges the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the 

 

1

In his declaration, Saboundjian confined his review of business travel records to 2014-2015 even 

though Radionomy’s San Francisco headquarters opened in 2012, and Radionomy did not 

surrender its license to do business in California until April 2016. He also did not describe what 

he was doing while on business. 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

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

Northern District of California

burden of establishing the district court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant. CollegeSource, 

Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff need only make a 

prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat the motion to dismiss, but “may not simply rest on 

the bare allegations of the complaint.” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015). 

“[U]ncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, and conflicts between parties over statements 

contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

alteration omitted).

In addition, Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits federal courts to 

exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant that lacks contacts with any single state if the 

defendant maintains sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole, unless (A) the defendant 

is subject to jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state, or (B) “exercising 

jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). 

District courts may permit limited discovery to determine whether personal jurisdiction 

exists. Mehr v. Fed’n Internationale de Football Ass’n, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 

2015). When the parties dispute pertinent facts bearing on the question or jurisdiction or where “a 

more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary,” district courts should ordinarily grant 

requests for limited discovery. Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 

2003). While district court discretion in this area is broad, district courts abuse their discretion by 

denying discovery “[w]here further discovery on an issue ‘might well’ demonstrate facts sufficient 

to constitute a basis for jurisdiction.” Mehr, 115 F. Supp. 3d at 1054 (quoting Harris v. Rutsky & 

Co. Ins. Serv. v. Bell & Clements, 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To that end, district 

courts may grant requests for expedited discovery on a showing of “good cause.” Semitool, Inc. v. 

Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Good cause exists when the 

need for expedited discovery outweighs prejudice to the responding party. Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Radionomy Group

California is not Radionomy Group’s place of incorporation or principle place of 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

business—“the paradigmatic locations where general jurisdiction is appropriate.” Goodyear 

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011). Yet Sony Music insists this 

court has personal jurisdiction over Radionomy Group because its subsidiaries (Radionomy, Inc. 

and Radionomy S.A.) have had significant contacts with California. Generally, the existence of a 

parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient to justify imputing one entity’s contacts with a forum 

state to another for the purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction. See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,

248 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] parent corporation may be directly involved in the 

activities of its subsidiaries without incurring liability so long as that involvement is ‘consistent 

with the parent’s investor status.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 72 

(1998)). The exception to this general rule applies when “the parent and subsidiary are not really 

separate entities, or one acts as an agent of the other, the local subsidiary’s contacts with the forum 

may be imputed to the foreign parent corporation.” Id. at 926 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Subsidiaries may be alter egos of the parent if (1) “there is such unity of interest and ownership 

that the separate personalities of [the parent and subsidiary entities] no longer exist and (2) that 

failure to disregard [their separate identities] would result in fraud or injustice.” Am. Tel. & Tel.

Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Mere involvement in decision-making about the subsidiary’s holdings is insufficient to 

show unity of interest and ownership provided the entities “observe all corporate formalities 

necessary to maintain corporate separateness.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1073 (internal quotation marks 

and alteration omitted).

At this stage, Sony Music is at a considerable disadvantage without discovery. Evidence 

submitted suggests Radionomy Group was certainly involved in some of its subsidiaries’ 

decisionmaking. All three entities shared senior officers and online resources. Radionomy Group 

owns 99% of Radionomy S.A., which in turn wholly owns Radionomy, Inc. Declarations 

submitted by Sony Music suggest Saboundjian did not distinguish between the three entities when 

he negotiated licensing agreements on behalf of all three entities. Without discovery, however, 

Sony Music is incapable of offering any evidence about the extent to which the Radionomy 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

6

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

Northern District of California

entities observed (or did not observe) corporate formalities or whether the entities are properly 

capitalized. See Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1073. Because Sony Music has satisfactorily demonstrated 

that discovery may reveal facts establishing general personal jurisdiction over Radionomy Group, 

the best course is to permit Sony Music to conduct limited discovery to uncover relevant facts. 

Sony Music has demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery limited to questions of 

personal jurisdiction because without such discovery it may not have the opportunity to hold 

Radionomy Group to account for alleged violations. Radionomy Group has not suggested this 

limited discovery would cause prejudice; indeed, Radionomy Group has agreed not to resist a 

request for discovery. Thus, Radionomy Group’s motion to dismiss must be denied at this time 

without prejudice to its right to renew its challenge to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of 

the complaint after the limited period of discovery expires.

B. Saboundjian

Similarly, Sony Music should have an opportunity to develop the factual record in support 

of general and specific jurisdiction over Saboundjian. It has presented sufficient evidence to 

suggest a factual basis for personal jurisdiction, such as Saboundjian’s role as Radionomy, Inc.’s 

registered agent in California and role negotiating licensing agreements with U.S. and California 

corporations. Accordingly, Saboundjian’s motion to dismiss the complaint must be denied at this 

time without prejudice to his ability to challenge the existence of personal jurisdiction and the 

sufficiency of the complaint in the future. Saboundjian has expressed willingness to proceed with 

limited jurisdictional discovery, and therefore permitting such limited discovery is unlikely to 

cause him prejudice.

V. CONCLUSION

Radionomy Group’s and Saboundjian’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) are denied without prejudice. Sony Music’s request for 

limited discovery of facts establishing personal jurisdiction is granted. Such discovery must be 

completed within the next forty-five days. To facilitate expedited discovery, defendant are 

ordered to produce discovery responses within twenty days of service.

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 7
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY

CASE NO. 16-cv-00951-RS

7

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

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 46 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 7