Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06371/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06371-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEAN DANHONG CHEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-06371-LB 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

KUANSHENG CHEN’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION 

Re: ECF No. 61 

INTRODUCTION 

In this lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charges a scheme to violate 

U.S. securities laws by, among other acts, certain defendants’ acting unlawfully as brokers and 

receiving unlawful commissions, in connection with investment offerings under the federal EB-5 

Immigrant Investor Program, and then covering up the scheme.1 The United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (”USCIS”) administers the EB-5 program, which allows foreign investors to 

invest at least $500,000 in USCIS-approved businesses, thereafter obtain a two-year “conditional 

permanent residency” visa, and (if at least ten U.S. jobs are created) obtain permanent residency.2

1

 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1–2 (¶¶ 1–4). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2 Id. at 5 (¶¶ 22–24). 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

Often, the investments are made through an investment vehicle such as a limited partnership or a 

limited liability company (offered through administrative entities called “regional centers”).3 The 

alleged scheme is that defendant Jean Chen, the sole partner of her law firm (with offices in San 

Francisco, San Jose, and Beijing), filed EB-5 petitions on behalf of her legal clients and then, she 

and her husband, co-defendant Tony Ye (her law firm’s office manager), brokered transactions 

(even though they are not registered brokers with the SEC) by introducing the clients to regional 

centers for the EB-5 projects that the clients ultimately sponsored. As a result, Ms. Chen and Mr. 

Ye received $12 million in unlawful commissions that they did not disclose to Ms. Chen’s legal 

clients.4 Then, with the help of co-defendant Kuansheng Chen, who lives in Hong Kong, they tried 

to conceal the scheme by means that included the use of Mr. Chen’s offshore bank account.5 

Mr. Chen moves to dismiss the complaint against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and for 

lack of proper service.6 The court can decide the motion without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). 

The court denies the motion to dismiss because the SEC has made a prima facie showing of 

specific personal jurisdiction and properly served Mr. Chen. 

STATEMENT 

The next sections review the facts relevant to personal jurisdiction, the facts relevant to service 

of process, and other relevant procedural history. 

1. Facts Relevant to Personal Jurisdiction 

The facts relevant to personal jurisdiction involve four categories: (1) Mr. Chen’s alleged use 

of his bank and brokerage accounts and an entity called New Horizons to facilitate unlawful 

payments from the regional centers to Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye; (2) his involvement in projects that 

3 Id. (¶¶ 22–23). 

4 Id. at 1–2 (¶ 1), 5–6 (¶¶ 26–34). Mr. Chen says he is a citizen and resident of Hong Kong and 

Beijing. Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 2). 

5 See Comp. – ECF No. 1 at 3 (¶ 11). 

6

 Mot. – ECF No. 61 at 12–21. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye managed (without disclosing them to clients); (3) other contacts with the 

district; and (4) the evidence that Mr. Chen submits to defeat personal jurisdiction. 

1.1 Use of Accounts and New Horizons to Facilitate the Scheme 

The alleged broker activity was from at least 2008 to at least 2016.7 Until December 2013, the 

regional centers paid the commissions directly to Ms. Chen’s law firm’s U.S.-based bank 

accounts.8 But in 2012, “certain regional centers stopped paying commissions directly to U.S.-

based individuals and entities because they recognized the payments could violate broker-dealer 

registration requirements contained in the federal securities laws.”9 As a result, Ms. Chen and Mr. 

Ye had the regional centers pay the compensation to Mr. Chen’s China-based accounts.10

(Mr. Chen is Ms. Chen’s family friend or relative (possibly her brother) and lives in Hong Kong 

and Beijing.11) 

Mr. Chen did not refer investors to the regional centers and instead was a “nominee” for Ms. 

Chen and Mr. Ye.12 Allegedly to lend the appearance of legitimacy to the receipt of fees, Mr. Chen 

“purports to be the managing director of U.S. Immigration Services of New Horizons, a Chinabased immigration agency.”13 But “New Horizons is not an independent agency managed by” Mr. 

Chen and instead is “co-owned and managed by [Ms.] Chen and [Mr.] Ye and is the Beijing 

branch of the[ir] Law Offices.”14 For example, the addresses for New Horizons and the Beijing 

7

 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 7 (¶¶ 38, 42). 

8 Id. at 9 (¶ 49). 

9 Id. (¶ 50). 

10 Id. (¶ 52). 

11 Id. at 3 (¶ 11) (friend or relative), 13 (¶ 72) (Mr. Chen said that Ms. Chen was his sister); see 

Kuansheng Chen Letter to Schwab, Ex. 14 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-15 at 2 (describing Ms. Chen 

as his sister); Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 2). 

12 Id. at 9 (¶ 53); see also Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 5). 

13 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 9 (¶ 54); see also Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 3) 

(describes himself has the Director of Immigration (but not an owner) of New Horizons); Kuansheng 

Chen Statement, Ex. 1 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-2 at 4 (shared Ms. Chen’s contact information 

with customers, communicated client questions and answers to Ms. Chen, and sent documents to 

Ms. Chen or other lawyers by means such as express mail, email, webchat, qq, or phone calls; 

Ms. Chen’s legal staff checked for client documents every day and “will know it is our customers”). 

14 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 9–10 (¶¶ 54–56). 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

law office are the same, the New Horizons office is staffed by law-office employees, the email 

domain and signature block for the office manager in Beijing shows that he worked for the law 

office, and the manager told EB-5 investors that he worked for the law office.15 The manager in 

Beijing removed his affiliation with the law office and replaced it with an affiliation with New 

Horizons only after Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye learned about the SEC’s investigation of New 

Horizons.16 At that time, Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye also “scrubbed all mention of the Beijing [law] 

office from Law Office materials.”17 Ms. Chen testified during the SEC investigation that she 

never had a law office in Beijing, an account that is contradicted by documents that her law office 

provided to investors before the SEC investigation, including listing the Beijing office on her 

firm’s website, brochures, retainer agreements, and business cards.18 In 2009, “[Ms.] Chen and 

[Mr.] Ye became co-owners of New Horizons,” which was “an existing immigration agency in 

Beijing that offered services to individuals interested in immigrating to Canada.”19 “Since 2009, 

all of the Law Offices’ activities in China purportedly have been carried out under New Horizons’ 

operating permit because China requires that companies providing immigration services in China 

have a particular permit.”20

To receive the commission payments from the regional centers, regional centers required 

marketing or referral agreements in the name of Mr. Chen or New Horizons.21 Mr. Chen signed 

the agreements, but Mr. Ye allegedly negotiated the terms of the agreements.22 After April 2012, 

when Mr. Chen was receiving the commission payments, Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye “continued to 

correspond with the regional centers as if they were the ones referring investors to the regional 

15 Id. at 10 (¶ 56). 

16 Id. 

17 Id. (¶ 57). 

18 Id.

19 Id. (¶ 58). 

20 Id. 

21 Id. at 10 (¶ 59). 

22 Id.

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

centers.”23 From April 2012 to August 2016, “at least five U.S.-based regional centers paid from 

mostly U.S.-based accounts at least $8,781,500 ($8,561,500 since January 14, 2013) to accounts 

held in the name of Kuansheng Chen,” for the benefit of Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye.24 By December 

2016, during the SEC’s investigation, “the regional centers were directed to stop paying” 

Mr. Chen, and instead, “New Horizons had at least two foreign companies act as substitute 

‘nominees’ to receive transaction-based compensation through overseas bank accounts on its 

behalf,” and both “are affiliated with New Horizons as subagents.”25

Mr. Chen allowed Ms. Chen and her law offices access to his bank account by giving her a 

physical token with the password needed to access the account.”26 Ms. Chen or her employees 

logged into the account from the United States, and sometimes, they would contact Mr. Chen “to 

obtain additional information needed to access the account.”27 Mr. Chen also had a U.S. Charles 

Schwab account, and — because Mr. Chen assigned Ms. Chen power of attorney over the account, 

and Mr. Ye pretended to be Mr. Chen — Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye used the account to return their 

commissions to the United States.28 In March 2016, after Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye learned about the 

SEC investigation, Mr. Ye, “acting as Kuansheng Chen,” closed the brokerage account.29 

1.2 Mr. Chen’s Connection With Other Charged Projects

In the complaint, the SEC names as a defendant Tree Lined Properties, Inc., an entity 

controlled by Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye.30 In short, the SEC alleges that Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye 

23 Id. at 11 (¶ 60). 

24 Id. (¶ 61). The SEC alleges that “[i]t is possible that additional regional centers paid Kuansheng 

Chen additional transaction-based compensation,” but Ms. Chen, Mr. Le, and the law office did not 

produce emails where regional centers talked about payments to be made to Mr. Chen, and while the 

SEC has some emails produced by third parties, it does not have insight into the full scope of 

compensation sent to Mr. Chen, and it may be higher than $12,709,500. Id. (¶ 62). 

25 Id. (¶ 64). 

26 Id. at 12 (¶ 68). 

27 Id. 

28 Id. (¶¶ 69–70). 

29 Id. at 13 (¶ 71). 

30 Id. at 3 (¶ 13). 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

sponsored EB-5 projects through an entity called Golden State Regional Center, LLC (also a codefendant), allegedly without disclosing their involvement.31 Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye allegedly used 

Tree Lined to purchase the land and develop projects, all without disclosing their conflicts of 

interests to their legal clients.32 Mr. Chen claims to have loaned money — evidenced by seven 

loan agreements (all with California choice-of-law provisions) — for real-estate development.33

The SEC disputes that the amounts were loans but cites them — and other evidence such as 

Mr. Chen’s sending at least $1 million from his Schwab account to one of the Golden State 

projects, Mr. Chen’s receiving $2 million back to the Schwab account, and millions from the 

Schwab account used to purchase the land for one of the projects — as evidence of his ties to the 

transactions and entities charged in the complaint.34

1.3 Other Alleged Contacts with the United States 

During the timeframe in the SEC case, Mr. Chen owned four pieces of real property in the 

United States (in one in Pleasant Hill and three in Emeryville), rented them to tenants, and 

allegedly sold them after Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye learned about the SEC investigation.35 In addition 

to the Charles Schwab account, he had a brokerage account at TD Ameritrade.36 He used Ms. 

Chen’s address as his address of record for his accounts, explaining that she was his sister and he 

stayed with her.37 He has a Social Security number and, for tax years 2012 and 2013, paid federal 

31 Id. at 15–23 (¶¶ 85–129). 

32 Id. at 23–28 (¶¶ 130–163). 

33 Loan Agreements, Exs. 2–8 to Dolan Decl. – ECF Nos. 62-3 to 62–9. 

34 Exs. 2–8 & 26–27 to Dolan Decl. – ECF Nos. 62–3 to 62–8, 62–27 to 62–29; Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 

26 (¶ 145). 

35 Records, Ex. 11 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-12 & Exs. 15–19 to Dolan Decl. – ECF Nos. 62-16 to 

61–20. 

36 The SEC submitted evidence of a TD Ameritrade account in 2001 (in the form of Mr. Chen’s 

communications to TD Ameritrade forwarding his U.S. Visa) that still existed in 2020. Exs. 12–13 to 

Dolan Decl. – ECF Nos. 62-13 & 62–14. 

37 Exs. 13–14 to Dolan Decl. – ECF Nos. 62-14 & 62–15. Mr. Chen also told TD Ameritrade (in 2001) 

that he lived in the United States because his children attended college here. Ex. 12 to Dolan Decl. – 

ECF No. 62-13. The 2001 time period is attenuated from the scheme alleged in the SEC’s complaint. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 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 Californi

a

and California taxes.38 The SEC points to other information about his loan of money to Ms. Chen 

and Mr. Ye to buy their home and his travel here especially for real-estate investing.39

1.4 Mr. Chen’s Additional Information 

Mr. Chen describes his activities as the Director of Immigration as “lawful under Chinese 

law.”40 He says that New Horizons has been controlled by third-party shareholders (and not the 

“Principal Defendants”) since 2005 (and attaches a screenshot of the Chinese government’s 

website that purportedly shows that).41 He describes New Horizons’ business as follows: 

New Horizons provides administrative services to Chinese clients pursuant to its 

Chinese Business license. As part of its business, where New Horizons clients are 

interested in obtaining residency in the U.S. through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor 

Program, New Horizons may advise those clients about regional centers, and the 

regional centers may pay appropriate fees to New Horizons as authorized under 

Chinese laws. New Horizons does not have any employees in the U.S. and does not 

market in the U.S. or engage in directed selling efforts in the U.S.42

2. Facts About Service of Process 

On November 2, 2018, the court granted the SEC’s request to serve Mr. Chen by email 

delivery and overnight delivery of the summons and complaint to his United States counsel.43 The 

SEC filed proof of service on November 6, 2018.44 

3. Other Relevant Procedural History 

The complaint has eight claims: (1) fraud in the offer or sale of securities, in violation of 

§ 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1)–(3) (against Ms. Chen, her law offices, and 

38 Exs. 15–19 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-16 to 62–20. 

39 Ye Dep., Ex. 34 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-35 at 5 (p. 96:1–9), 7 (p. 188:1–7); Kuansheng Chen 

Statement, Ex. 1 to Dolan Decl. – ECF No. 62-2 at 2. Mr. Chen describes his contacts as more limited: 

“I have only visited the U.S. two times, once in around 1999 or 2000 and once in 2018, which was for 

personal reason; both trips lasted only a couple weeks.” Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 

6). 

40 Kuansheng Chen Decl. – ECF No. 61-1 at 3 (¶ 3). 

41 Id. (¶ 4). 

42 Id. 

43 Order – ECF No. 14. 

44 Proof of Service – ECF No. 17. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 8

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 Californi

a

Golden State); (2) fraud in the offer or sale of securities on an aiding-and-abetting theory, in 

violation of § 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1)–(3) (against Mr. Ye, Mr. Chen, 

Kai Hao Robinson (a CPA and Golden State’s manager), Tree Lined, and Ms. Chen’s law offices); 

(3) fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, in violation of § 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a)–(c) (against 

Ms. Chen, her law offices, and Golden State); (4) fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of 

securities on an aiding-and-abetting theory, in violation of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 77j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a)–(c) (against Mr. Ye, Mr. Chen, Ms. 

Robinson, Tree Lined, and Ms. Chen’s law offices); (5) failure to register as a broker-dealer, in 

violation of § 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a) (against Ms. Chen, Mr. Ye, and Ms. 

Chen’s law offices; (6) failure to register as a broker-dealer on an aiding-and-abetting theory, in 

violation of § 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a) (against Mr. Chen); (7) controllingperson liability under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), for violations of § 15(a) of 

the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a) (against Ms. Chen and Mr. Ye); and (8) alternative liability 

for disgorgement (against Mr. Chen in the event that he is not found liable for the aiding-andabetting violations in claims two, four, and six).45 

The parties stipulated to a partial stay of the case (subject to some discovery) because Ms. 

Chen and Mr. Ye are charged criminally with visa fraud, obstruction of justice, aggravated identity 

fraud, and identity theft.46 Mr. Chen then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal 

jurisdiction and for lack of service of process.47 All parties consented to the undersigned’s 

jurisdiction.48

45 Comp. – ECF No. 1 at 3 (¶ 10), 29–35 (¶¶ 166–204). 

46 Stipulation and Order – ECF No. 53; Indictment, No. 19-cr-00111-LHK – ECF No. 27. 

47 Mot. – ECF No. 61. 

48 Consents – ECF Nos. 7 (SEC), 22 (Kuansheng Chen), 23 (all parties), 26 (Jean Chen); 69 

(addressing consent). 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 9

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 Californi

a

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“‘In opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff 

bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.’” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 

1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th 

Cir. 2011)). The parties may submit, and the court may consider, declarations and other evidence 

outside the pleadings in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 

248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Williams v. 

Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1024 (9th Cir. 2001). 

“‘Where, as here, the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an 

evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to 

withstand the motion to dismiss.’” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 (some internal quotation marks 

omitted) (quoting CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1073). “[U]ncontroverted allegations must be taken 

as true, and ‘[c]onflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in 

the plaintiff’s favor.’” Id. (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 

(9th Cir. 2004)). But courts “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are 

contradicted by affidavit[.]” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 

557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977)); accord Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 (“A plaintiff may not 

simply rest on the ‘bare allegations of the complaint.’”) (internal brackets omitted) (quoting 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800).49 

49 The court overrules Mr. Chen’s objections to the SEC’s evidence and considers it. Cf. Ridgway v. 

Phillips, 383 F. Supp. 3d 938, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (in ruling on a personal-jurisdiction challenge, the 

court may “weigh the contents of affidavits and other evidence, or even hold a hearing and resort to 

oral testimony; . . . a prima facie showing must be based on affirmative proof beyond the pleadings, 

such as affidavits, testimony or other competent evidence of specific facts”) (internal quotes and 

citations omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 10

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 Californi

a

ANALYSIS 

1. Personal Jurisdiction 

Mr. Chen moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that he 

lacks sufficient contacts with the United States.50 The court denies the motion to dismiss because 

the SEC has met its prima facie burden to establish specific personal jurisdiction. 

“The general rule is that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if permitted by a longarm statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal due process.” Pebble 

Beach v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2005) (analyzing the California and federal 

long-arm statutes). As to the long-arm statute prong, the federal securities laws establish the basis 

for personal jurisdiction and authorize nationwide service of process. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77v, 78aa; Sec. 

Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1315 (9th Cir. 1985); S.E.C. v. Nagaicevs, 12-cv00413-JST, 2013 WL 3730578, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013). The due-process inquiry is 

whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that the assertion of jurisdiction 

in that forum “‘does not offend traditional notices of fair play and substantial justice.’” Pebble 

Beach, 453 F.3d at 1154-55 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 315 

(1945)). The question in securities cases thus is “whether the party has sufficient contacts with the 

United States, not any particular state.” Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d at 1315 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (internal citations and quotation omitted); accord In re LDK Solar Sec. Lit., 07-cv05182-WHA, 2008 WL 4369987, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2008) (“Congress has provided for 

nationwide service of process for claims under federal securities laws . . . and therefore the 

question becomes whether the party has sufficient contacts with the United States, not any 

particular state”) (internal quotes and citations omitted). 

There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. 

Super. Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779–80 (2017). The SEC asserts only specific personal jurisdiction.51 

50 Mot. – ECF No. 61 at 9–10, 12–20. 

51 Opp’n – ECF No. 62 at 14. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 10 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 11

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 Californi

a

The inquiry about whether a forum may assert specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident 

defendant focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Walden 

v. Flore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). This due-process inquiry for specific personal jurisdiction has 

three parts: 

(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 privilege 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 forumrelated activities; and 

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, 

i.e. it must be reasonable. 

Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802); 

accord In re LDK Solar Sec. Lit., 2008 WL 4369987 at *5 (applying the three-part test in a federal 

securities case). The plaintiff has the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test. Picot, 

780 F.3d at 1211 (citations omitted). The burden then shifts to the defendant to set forth a 

compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. at 1212 (citation 

omitted). 

A purposeful-availment analysis generally is for lawsuits sounding in contract, and a 

purposeful-direction analysis is for lawsuits sounding in tort. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802; 

accord In re LDK Solar Sec. Lit., 2008 WL 4369987 at *5–6; Chassin Holdings Corp. v. Formula 

VC Ltd., 15-cv-02294-MEJ, 2016 WL 1569986, at *5 (N.D. Cal. April 19, 2016). Courts analyze 

minimum contacts in securities cases under both approaches. In re LDK Solar Sec. Lit., 2008 WL 

4369987 at *5–6. The next sections address both standards. 

1.1 Purposeful Availment 

Purposeful availment typically is action in the forum that invokes the benefits and protections 

of the laws in the forum. Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1155. It can be in the “form of affirmative 

conduct allowing or promoting the transaction of business in the forum.” SEC v. Jammin Java 

Corp., No. 2:15-cv-08291-SVM-MRW, 2016 WL 6595133, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). In 

short, the SEC contends that Mr. Chen’s receipt of fees for the EB-5 investments — from the 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 11 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 12

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 Californi

a

U.S.-based regional centers — and the New Horizons-Chen law offices overlap satisfy this prong. 

They do. The parties dispute Mr. Chen’s role (victim of impersonation or integral participant52), 

but it is undisputed that he (a family member or friend) was integral to the receipt of funds in the 

alleged scheme. Also, his involvement with Tree Lined supports the conclusion that he 

purposefully promoted business here. If someone intentionally does business here, that gives rise 

to personal jurisdiction, even if the person resides outside the United States. See Ballad v. Savage, 

65 F.3d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1995) (Ponzi scheme by Austrian bank aimed at U.S. residents). 

Mr. Chen’s main argument to the contrary is that the SEC’s cases are distinguishable because 

they involve main actors (not agents), and Mr. Ye impersonated him to commit the fraud.53 These 

contentions (if true) may defeat liability, but the SEC’s burden is only to “make a prima-facie 

showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 

(internal quotations and citation omitted). It has done that, especially given the diversion of fees to 

New Horizons, the business and personal relationships, and the New Horizons-Chen law offices 

overlap. 

1.2 Purposeful Direction 

Purposeful direction exists when a defendant commits an act outside the forum that was 

intended to and does in fact cause injury in the forum. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788–89 

(1984). Under the “effects test,” the defendant must (1) commit an intentional act (2) expressly 

aimed at the forum (3) that causes harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the 

forum. Washington Shoe Co. v. A–Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting Mavrix, 657 F.3d at 1228), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Axiom Foods, 

Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017). The “effects test” focuses on 

“the forum in which the defendant’s acts were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred 

within the forum.” Mavrix, 647 F.3d at 1228. “However, referring to the Calder test as an ‘effects’ 

test can be misleading. For this reason, we have warned courts not to focus too narrowly on the 

52 Opp’n – ECF No. 62 at 15–16; Reply – ECF No. 65 at 5–7. 

53 Reply – ECF No. 65 at 5–7. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 12 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 13

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 Californi

a

test’s third prong — the effects prong — holding that ‘something more’ is needed in addition to a 

mere foreseeable effect.” Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1156 (citation omitted). 

Here, the SEC has met its prima facie showing that Mr. Chen directed his intentional acts to 

the United States. Again, the contention is that he was an integral part of getting the fees (through 

his accounts and signing the agreements). The power of attorney does not change that conclusion, 

given the parties’ relationship, the Tree Lined transactions, and the monies involved (run through 

Mr. Chen’s accounts). Mr. Chen may be right on the merits: it may be that someone’s forging his 

signature on key documents (if true) defeats liability.54 But that does not defeat personal 

jurisdiction when, as is true here, the SEC has established its “prima facie showing of 

jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068. 

The SEC also has established the remaining elements of the “effects” test: acts expressly 

aimed at the forum that cause harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum. 

Washington Shoe Co., 704 F.3d at 673. The alleged scheme could not have happened without the 

alternative means to accept the fees for the investments. 

The final inquiry is whether the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Picot, 780 F.3d 

at 1211. Courts consider seven factors in determining whether exercising personal jurisdiction is 

reasonable: “(1) the extent of the defendant's purposeful interjection into the forum state, (2) the 

burden on the defendant in defending in the forum, (3) the extent of the conflict with the 

sovereignty of the defendant's state, (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (5) 

the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy, (6) the importance of the forum to the 

plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief, and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.” 

Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (citing Burger King Corp. v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476–77 (1985)), overruled in part on other grounds by Yahoo! Inc. v. La 

Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2006). It is the 

defendant's burden to raise and address these factors in the first instance. Bancroft & Masters, Inc., 

223 F.3d at 1088. There is a presumption of reasonableness when the first two prongs have been 

54 Id. at 5. 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 14
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06371-LB 14

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 Californi

a

met, and a defendant thereafter must present a “compelling case” that jurisdiction is unreasonable. 

See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. 

The court’s exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. The case involves the enforcement of U.S. 

securities laws. Most acts – including the payment of transaction fees — happened here. Of 

course, the burdens of a foreign defendant to defend a case are substantial, but that does not defeat 

responsibility for alleged securities-laws violations here. There is no sovereignty conflict: there are 

no unique circumstances that preclude enforcement of U.S. securities laws. Otherwise, the factors 

support enforcement of U.S. securities laws here. 

2. Adequacy of Service 

The court previously approved service by alternative means. See Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha 

IP Bridge 1, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1263 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“There is no hierarchy of procedures, 

as [the defendant] suggests, that requires [the plaintiff] to attempt service through the Hague 

Convention or other means before seeking an order under Rule 4(f)(3)”); cf. also id. at 1264 

(“service on a foreign corporation’s counsel in the United States is an effective and reasonable 

method, and is not prohibited by the Hague Convention”). Mr. Chen’s arguments to the contrary 

do not change the court’s previous conclusion that service was proper. 

3. Deposition 

The court does not reach the issue about Mr. Chen’s deposition because that inquiry turns on 

this order. The parties must confer and raise any dispute separately. 

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Mr. Chen’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This disposes 

of ECF No. 61. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2020 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-06371-LB Document 72 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 14