Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02850/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02850-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN PEREZ, MICHAEL MOORE, No. 2:09-cv-02850-MCE-KJM

and BRIGETTE MOORE

Plaintiffs,

vs. ORDER

VEZER INDUSTRIAL 

PROFESSIONALS, INS., a 

California Corporation, 

Defendants.

___________________________/

VEZER INDUSTRIAL

PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Third-Party 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PINPOINT HOLDINGS, INC.,

a corporation; B2 GOLD, a

Canadian corporation,

Third-Party 

Defendants. 

___________________________/

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 24
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 further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

 Because oral argument was not determined to be of material 2

assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the

briefing. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

2

Plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries they sustained

due to the alleged negligence of a California corporation, Vezer

Industrial Professionals, Inc. (“Vezer”) while working at a

Nicaragua mining site whose construction was being managed by

Vezer. Vezer subsequently brought the owner of the mine, B2 Gold

Corporation (“B2 Gold”), into this litigation as a third-party

defendant. B2 Gold, a Canadian company, has now filed the motion

presently before the Court (Docket No. 24). The first portion of

that motion seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). B2 Gold 1

alternatively seeks dismissal under the common law doctrine of

forum non conveniens, contending that an adequate forum for

redress exists in either Canada or Nicaragua. For the reasons

set forth below, both of B2 Gold’s requests will be denied. 

2

BACKGROUND

Defendant Vezer is a California corporation with its

permanent place of business located in Suisun, California. 

Beginning in June or July of 2007, Vezer was approached by

Central Sun Mining (“Central Sun”) for the purchase of $1 million

worth of equipment owned by Vezer and then located in the State

of Nevada. 

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 24
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

A contract for the purchase of that equipment was subsequently

negotiated over a series of email and telephone communiques

between Central Sun representatives and Vezer’s Suisun offices. 

Thereafter, in November of 2007, Vezer entered into

additional negotiations with Central Sun for the construction of

a gold mine located in La Libertad, Nicaragua. Representatives

of Central Sun, Peter Tagliamonte and Graham Spiers, met with

Frank Vezer, President of Vezer, on two occasions at Vezer’s

offices in Suisun to negotiate the terms of an agreement. Each

of those meetings lasted approximately four hours. A third

meeting then took place, also at Vezer’s California offices, to

finalize the necessary arrangements. This final meeting spanned

approximately sixteen hours during the last two weeks of November

2007 and resulted in an “interim” agreement. After Graham Spiers

sent a clarifying email on November 28, 2007, a final agreement

was signed by the parties on December 12, 2007. In accordance

with the agreement, Central Sun purchased tools and equipment

from Vezer in California through individual transactions

negotiated between the Defendant’s offices in California and

Central Sun’s office’s in Nicaragua. Vezer also agreed to

provide construction support and personnel pursuant to the

agreement.

B2 Gold is the successor-in-interest to Central Sun, having

acquired the company in March 2009. B2 Gold is a Canadian

company with a principal place of business in Vancouver, Canada. 

It does not advertise or own property in California, and it is

not registered with the California Secretary of State. 

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 24
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

 Plaintiffs’ complaint, on the other hand, alleges that 3

Ocon was hired by Vezer. Pls.’ Compl., ¶¶ 10-11.

4

Once the aforementioned construction agreement was in place,

Plaintiffs Ruben Perez and Michael Moore (“Plaintiffs”) were

approached by Vezer through another company, Pinpoint Holdings,

about working at the mine in Nicaragua. Perez and Moore, during

all times relevant, were residents of Texas and Pennsylvania,

respectively. Plaintiffs were required to reside at the mine for

the duration of their work, but were provided transportation

services by Vezer.

The provision of transportation services ultimately spawned

the current litigation. On October 4, 2008, while being

chauffeured in Nicaragua by J.J. Ocon, a driver allegedly

employed by a private transportation company selected by Central

Sun, the pick-up truck driven by Ocon and occupied by Plaintiffs 3

rolled off a mountain road. Plaintiffs allege they were injured

due to Ocon’s negligence and reckless driving. 

Following commencement of this litigation, Vezer impled B2

Gold under Rule 14(a)(1) contending that, under the terms of its

agreement with Central Sun, B2 Gold, as Central Sun’s successorin-interest, was obligated to indemnify Vezer for Plaintiffs’

personal injury lawsuit.

B2 Gold then filed the present motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, on forum non conveniens

grounds. 

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 24
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

STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the court’s

personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Doe v. Unocal Corp.,

248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). The court may consider

evidence provided in affidavits in assessing the plaintiff’s

showing. Id. When a district court rules on a motion to dismiss

for want of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary

hearing, “the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of

jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Id.

(citing Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Additionally, in circumstances where the facts are not directly

controverted, the plaintiff’s account is taken as true for the

purposes of a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss and when conflicts do

arise, they must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. 

A federal court may only exercise jurisdiction over a

defendant if it “comport[s] with the state[‘s] long arm statute.” 

Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggerie A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 269 (9th

Cir. 1995). California statute permits courts to hear any

dispute that is not inconsistent with Constitutional due process

requirements. See, e.g., Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. August

Nat’l Inc., 233 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000); Cal Code Civ.

Proc. § 410.10. Therefore, federal courts within California “may

exercise jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by due

process.” Scott v. Breeland, 92 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 5 of 24
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

6

In order to subject a defendant to in personam jurisdiction,

he must be placed on notice that he may be haled before a court

in the forum. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson,

444 U.S. 286 (1980). This requires that the defendant maintain

such “minimum contacts” with the forum that maintenance of the

suit against the defendant does not offend “traditional notions

of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer,

311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applies a three-part

test to ascertain whether exercise of specific jurisdiction

over a defendant comports with Constitutional requirements:

“(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 benefit and protection of its

laws;

(2) [T]he claim must be one which rises out of or

relates to the defendant’s forum related activities;

(3) [T]he exercise of jurisdiction must comport with

fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be

reasonable.”

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing

Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff

bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs.

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th

Cir. 2004). If the plaintiff meets this requirement, the burden

“then shifts to the defendant to ‘present a compelling case’ that

the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. at 802

(citing Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)). 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 6 of 24
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

7

A presumption of reasonableness exists when there has been a

showing that the defendant “purposefully directed [its]

activities at forum residents.” Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical

Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing

Burger King, 471 U.S.). 

General jurisdiction, on the other hand, exists in

circumstances where the defendant’s contacts are “substantial” or

“continuous and systematic.” In such instances, the defendant

may be haled before a court in the forum in any action,

regardless of whether the action is related to those contacts.

Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082,

1086 (9th Cir. 2000). The court noted that the standard for

establishing such jurisdiction is “fairly high,” requiring the

defendant’s contacts to be those that “approximate physical

presence.” Id. (quoting Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070,

1073 (9th Cir. 1986). 

B. Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens

The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a

court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute when the

convenience of the parties so dictates. See Gulf Oil Corp. v.

Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 504 (1947). Granting such a motion results

in the dismissal of the litigation. When a suit is brought

before the court that should have been brought elsewhere, and the

court does not have the power to transfer the suit to the foreign

jurisdiction, the lawsuit may properly be dismissed. 

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 7 of 24
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

8

See Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., Ltd., 918 F.2d

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A forum non conveniens dismissal will “ordinarily be

appropriate where trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a

heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the

plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience

to support his choice.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.

235, 249 (1981). The moving party has the burden of proving, and

the court must consider: (1) the existence of an adequate

alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of public and private

factors favor dismissal. Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts

Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 2009). The required

showings by the moving party must “overcome the great deference

due to plaintiffs because a showing of convenience by a party who

has sued in his home forum will usually outweigh the

inconvenience the defendant may have shown.” Id. at 664. 

When deciding a forum non conveniens-based motion, a U.S.

citizen’s choice of forum, while not dispositive, is given “great

deference.” Contact Lumber, 918 F.2d at 1449. Despite the

deference accorded a citizen plaintiff, if the court determines

that “the balance of conveniences suggest that trial in the

chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant

or the court, dismissal is proper.” Contact Lumber, 918 F.2d at

1449 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256 n.23). 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 8 of 24
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

9

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

1. General Jurisdiction

Neither Vezer nor Plaintiffs contend that the acts of B2

Gold meet the threshold for general jurisdiction. In determining

whether the defendant’s activities are “continuous and

systematic” or “substantial,” for purposes of confirming general

jurisdiction, courts look to whether “the defendant solicits or

engages in business, serves the states markets, designates an

agent for service of process, holds a license, has employees, or

is incorporated there.” Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield of

Kansas City, 800 F.2d 1474, 1478 (9th Cir. 1986). 

B2 Gold is neither authorized nor licensed to do business in

California. B2 Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, p. 2. It has not registered

with the State’s Secretary of State nor has it designated an

agent of service in the forum. Id. Moreover, it does not

maintain offices, hold any bank accounts, or advertise within the

state. Id. Without such contacts, the higher standard required

to impose general jurisdiction is not met. Bancroft & Masters,

Inc., 233 F.3d. As a consequence, this Court cannot assert

general jurisdiction over B2 Gold. See Helicopteros Nacionales

de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 9 of 24
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

10

 2. Specific Jurisdiction

Despite the absence of general jurisdiction over B2 Gold,

Vezer nonetheless argues that B2 Gold, through its predecessor in

interest, Central Sun, conducted activities in California that

satisfy the purposeful availment requirement necessary to confer

specific jurisdiction under the facts of this case. Vezer Opp.,

p. 7. In support of this contention, Vezer argues that B2 Gold

came to California to negotiate the sale of over $1 million worth

of mining equipment located in Nevada. Id. at 4. Following the

sale of that equipment, B2 Gold’s representatives traveled to

California to meet with Vezer on three separate occasions. After

negotiations spanning some twenty-four hours, B2 Gold agreed to a

contract whereby Vezer would provide services for the

construction of the mine owned by B2 Gold in Nicaragua. Frank

Vezer Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants further argue that daily

communications were maintained between B2 Gold and Vezer in

California to execute the various provisions contained within the

contract. Vezer Opp., p. 4.

Vezer also argues that it was foreseeable that B2 Gold could

be haled before a tribunal in California due to the existence of

an indemnity agreement, under the terms of which B2 Gold would

insulate Vezer from any claims arising out of the conduct of

Central Sun’s “agents, employees and contractors.” Vezer Opp.,

p. 8.

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 10 of 24
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

11

The Constitution mandates that a defendant have some notice

before being haled before a court in a particular forum. See,

e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. To assure this, due

process requires that the defendant have “certain minimum

contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit

does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.’” Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414. The Supreme Court has

“bifurcated this due process determination into two inquiries,

requiring, first, that the defendant have the requisite contacts

with the forum state to render it subject to the forum’s

jurisdiction, and second, that the assertion of jurisdiction be

reasonable.” Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Nav. Co., Inc.,

1 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The critical factor in assessing whether the defendant has

established minimum contacts is that there be “some act by which

the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privileges of

conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the

benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla,

357 U.S. 235, 253-54 (1958) (citing International Shoe, 326 U.S.

at 319). A purposeful availment analysis most often arises in

“suits sounding in contract.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802;

See also Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009). In

Schwarzenegger, the court concluded that a defendant purposefully

avails himself of the privileges and protections that a forum

affords by a showing that he, for example, “execut[ed] or

perform[ed] a contract there.” Id.

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 11 of 24
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

12

In return for the benefits associated with the benefits and

protections of a forum’s laws, “a defendant must...submit to the

burdens of litigation in that forum.” Id. (quoting Burger King,

471 U.S. at 476). It is important to note that the formation of

a contract alone is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. 

See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478. The Supreme Court stressed the

necessity “for a highly realistic approach,” acknowledging that a

contract is “ordinarily but an intermediate step serving to tie

up prior business negotiations with future consequences which

themselves are the real object of the transaction.” Id. at 479. 

The question cannot turn on the quantitative number of contracts

alone, and “even a ‘singe act’ by the defendant can support

jurisdiction, but only if that act creates a ‘substantial

connection’ with the forum.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1017 n.3

(quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476 n. 18); McGee v. Int’l Life

Ins. Co., 335 U.S. 220 (1957); cf. Travelers Health Ass’n v.

Commonwealth of Va., 339 U.S. 643, 647 (1950) (finding purposeful

availment when “business activities reach out beyond one state

and create continuing relationships and obligations”). 

In the instant case, the contractual relationship between

Vezer and B2 Gold cannot be characterized as a “one-shot affair.”

Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1017 (citing CompuServe, Inc. v.

Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1265 (6th Cir. 1996). To the contrary,

B2 Gold entered into complex contract negotiations with a

California company that themselves created continuing and

substantial obligations.

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 12 of 24
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

13

B2 Gold nonetheless argues that because of contractual

provisions expressly stating that the laws of Ontario, Canada,

will govern the parties’ agreement, neither B2 Gold or its

predecessor-in-interest availed themselves of California’s law

and privileges. B2 Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, pp. 5-6. The Supreme

Court has upheld the validity of forum selection clauses which

require specific forums to hear disputes arising from certain

transactions or specific parties. See Carnival Cruise Lines,

Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991). Had Vezer and B2 Gold agreed

to such a stipulation, there is no question that this court would

be required to dismiss the action pursuant to the freely

negotiated terms of the parties. Id. The parties, however, did

not agree to a forum selection clause but, rather, a choice of

laws clause. As articulated by the Supreme Court, the choice of

laws clause has subordinate importance in personal jurisdiction

inquiries. Denckla, 357 U.S. at 254. 

Under the analysis set forth above, B2 Gold’s contacts with

California are sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. 

Its representatives visited California on three occasions and

maintained consistent telephone and electronic communication with

Vezer. Moreover, it entered into a contract which created

substantial obligations with a company headquartered within

California. This brings the case squarely within the province of

Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, 557 F.2d 1280

(9th Cir. 1977). In Data Disc, the court found personal

jurisdiction because “at least some of the negotiations took

place” in the forum, concluding that the defendant purposefully

availed itself of the privileges and protections of the state.

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 13 of 24
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

14

Id. at 1284. Although the underlying cause of action is a tort

claim alleging personal injuries, the contract negotiation

undertaken by B2 Gold in the State of California establishes the

requisite contacts. 

Both Vezer and B2 Gold cite the “but for” test applied in

the Ninth Circuit to determine whether a particular claim arises

out of forum-related activities. This test requires that Vezer

show it would not have any claims against B2 Gold “but for” the

latter’s forum related conduct. See, e.g., Ballard v. Savage,

65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Shute v. Carnival Cruise

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

499 U.S. 585 (1991). Although both parties cite the “but for”

test in their briefs, they come to different conclusions

regarding its application. Vezer argues that but for the

agreement, it would not have conducted operations in Nicaragua,

from which the current litigation is a direct result. Vezer

Opp., 8. Therefore, asserts Vezer, the view that there is “no

causal connection” between B2 Gold’s contacts with California and

the current litigation is “entirely misplaced.” Id. Conversely,

B2 Gold argues that the activities are “too attenuated” to

satisfy the “but for” test,” and cites in support of Doe v.

American Nat’l Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1997). B2

Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, 7. 

It is evident that “but for” B2 Gold’s above-described

activities in California, Vezer would not have conducted any

operations in Nicaragua, and would not now be a defendant in a

personal injury claim arising therefrom. 

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 14 of 24
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

15

B2 Gold’s reliance on Doe v. American Nat’l Red Cross, supra, is

misplaced because that decision raised an entirely different

question: whether a government employee involved in the

regulatory process, and only peripherally involved in the flow of

products into a state, may be haled before a court in that state. 

112 F.3d at 1051. Holding that the government employee was not

so exposed, the Red Cross court concluded that his contacts with

the forum were too attenuated for him “to believe that his role

in the regulatory process would expose him to the power of the

courts in Arizona.” Id. Far from being a government employee

involved in the regulatory process, B2 Gold traveled to the

California three times to conduct lengthy contractual

negotiations and ultimately entered into a contract for both

services and equipment purchased from a California company. This

litigation resulted directly from those negotiations;

consequently, B2 Gold was on notice that it could be haled before

a California court. 

Vezer having established that B2 Gold maintained sufficient

contacts with California, and having demonstrated for

jurisdictional purposes and that the litigation is a result of

those forum-related activities, the burden now shifts to B2 Gold

to assert that the exercise of such jurisdiction would be

unreasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. Vezer contends that B2

Gold has not met “its heavy burden of establishing that

exercising jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable in this

case.” Vezer Opp., 9. 

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 15 of 24
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

16

Defendant further contends that because B2 Gold was able to

travel to California on multiple occasions to advance its

business interests, its argument that it has no presence in

California should not be given considerable weight. Id. Vezer

also points out that if B2 Gold was able to transport its

employees to and from a mine located in Nicaragua, there would be

no overwhelming burden in transporting witnesses to a California

courtroom. Finally, Vezer asserts that California has

identifiable interests in adjudicating this matter, arguing that

Defendant is a California company that is entitled to the

protections of its laws and that California has an interest in

ensuring that B2 Gold adheres to its contractual obligations. 

B2 Gold argues, on the other hand, that this Court should

apply the reasonableness standard more loosely in light of the

fact that it is a foreign corporation based in Canada. B2 Gold’s

Mot. Dismiss, p. 8. In support of this contention, B2 Gold cites

Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel, Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th

Cir. 1993), wherein the court held that litigation involving a

foreign defendant establishes “a higher jurisdictional barrier

than litigation against a citizen from a sister state.” B2

Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, pp. 8-9. Similarly, B2 Gold references the

same conclusion in Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of

Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 115 (1987), where the Supreme Court stated

that “great care and reserve should be exercised when extending

our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international

field.” Id. 

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 16 of 24
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

17

Additionally, B2 argues that California has no legitimate

interest in adjudicating the dispute because the Plaintiffs are

not state residents and the accident occurred in Nicaragua. B2

Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, pp. 8-9. 

In evaluating whether exercising jurisdiction over a

defendant comports with notions of “fair play and substantial

justice,” the court must consider seven factors: (1) the extent

of defendant’s purposeful interjection into the forum state’s

affairs; (2) the burden on defendant in defending in the forum;

(3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the

defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating

the dispute; (5) most efficient judicial resolution of the

controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to plaintiff’s

interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the

existence of an alternative forum. Core-Vent, 11 F.3d at 1487. 

No single factor is dispositive and all seven must be balanced. 

Id. (citing Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 623 (9th Cir.

1991).) In considering these factors as applied to the facts of

this case, it is evident that exercising jurisdiction over the

defendant is proper and B2 Gold has not met its burden.

Sovereignty concerns are taken into greater consideration

when the foreign defendant has no United States-based

relationships. Id. at 1489; see also Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112-113. 

In considering the weight of the burden on B2 Gold, the Ninth

Circuit has held that “continuing contacts” with entities within

the forum “translate into less of a litigation burden” than if

none existed. Id. at 1488. 

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 17 of 24
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

18

The repeated negotiations, communications, and services contract

executed by the two parties here must reduce the weight of this

factor. In the instant case, B2 Gold had a contractual

relationship with the forum-based defendant that was executed

after several trips into the forum to negotiate. Consequently,

this factor cannot weigh heavily in declining the exercise of

jurisdiction.

B2 Gold has also failed to establish that California does

not have an interest in adjudicating this controversy. 

California has a strong interest in protecting its residents when

they are involved in litigation within the state. See Sinatra v.

National Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1988). Given

the factors considered above, it would not violate notions of

fair play and substantial justice to exercise jurisdiction over

B2 Gold. 

B. Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens

B2 Gold alternatively asserts that even if the Court decides

that personal jurisdiction is present, it should dismiss the

matter pursuant to the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. 

B2 Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, p. 9. In support of that contention, B2

Gold argues that Canada or Nicaragua are suitable alternative

forms. Additionally, B2 Gold cites that location of witnesses and

evidence in Nicaragua and Canada, and that holding trial in this

forum would be expensive. Moreover, because the contractual terms

are governed by Canadian law, B2 Gold maintains it would be more

logical to hold the trial before a Canadian tribunal. 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 18 of 24
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

19

Vezer argues in response that B2 Gold has not met its burden

in establishing that an adequate alternative forum exists. Vezer

Opp., p. 14. According to Vezer, B2 Gold has not pointed to a

remedy nor addressed the statute of limitations which may bar

such a claim in the suggested alternative forums. Id.

Additionally, Vezer points to the fact that the issue in dispute

is a personal injury claim, not a matter of contractual

interpretation, and the choice of laws clause should accordingly

not weigh heavily in this consideration. 

The Court finds Vezer’s arguments to be more compelling. A

party seeking dismissal on a forum non conveniens grounds must

establish: (1) the existence of an adequate alternative forum;

and (2) that the balance of relevant private and public interests

factors favor dismissal. Creative Technology, Ltd. v. Aztech

System Pte., Ltd., 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Contact

Lumber, 918 F.2d at 1449). The first step in the analysis is

whether an alternative forum exists, the key determination being

whether “the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so

clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at

all.” Id. at 699 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.

235, 254 (1981)). This requirement is typically met “if the

defendant is amenable to service of process in the alternative

forum.” Id. at 701; see also Yang v. M/V Minas Leo, 76 F.3d 391

(9th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court has, however, cited “rare

circumstances” where the remedy provided in the alternate forum

is “clearly unsatisfactory.” Id. As an example, the Court cited

instances where a forum does not permit litigation on the issue

in dispute. Id. 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 19 of 24
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

20

The burden of showing the existence of an adequate alternative

forum is solely the defendant’s and “the remedy must be clear

before the case will be dismissed.” Lockman Foundation v.

Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir.

1983)). 

B2 Gold has failed to meet its burden of production in

establishing the existence of an alternative forum in either

Canada or Nicaragua. As an initial matter, B2 Gold does not

provide sufficient evidence to satisfy even the threshold

requirement created by the Court in Piper Aircraft: whether it is

amenable to service in the alternative forum. 454 U.S. at 254. 

Moreover, B2 Gold makes only conclusory assertions that Canada is

an adequate alternative forum because it is a Canadian company,

and that Nicaragua is an adequate alternative forum because the

accident took place there. B2 Gold’s Mot. Dismiss, p. 10. 

B2 Gold has failed to establish that either Canada or Nicaragua

provide “some potential avenue for redress.” Ceramic Corp. of

America v. Inka Maritima Corp. Inc., 1 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 1993). 

For the reasons stated above, B2 Gold has not met its burden of

production on the existence of an adequate alternative forum. 

B2 Gold fares no better in an analysis of the public and

private interest factors to be weighed in a forum non conveniens

motion. See Creative Technology, 61 F.3d 696 at 703. B2 Gold

asserts that “none of the relevant witnesses reside” in

California and that “all of the physical evidence is in

Nicaragua.” Additionally, B2 Gold argues that it would be very

expensive to transport the witnesses from Canada and Nicaragua. 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 20 of 24
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

21

B2 Gold also contends that because the accident did not occur

here and the plaintiffs do not reside here, public factors weigh

in favor of dismissal. Finally, B2 Gold maintains that because

the contract is to be interpreted according to Canadian law,

private interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Vezer counters by arguing there is no reason why this Court

is not capable of applying Canadian law should the need arise. 

Vezer Opp., p. 14. Vezer argues that private interests favor

this forum because it is a California resident, and maintains

that Canada is no more convenient than California because many of

the witnesses involved were either working at the mine in

Nicaragua or were residents of Nicaragua. Additionally, Vezer

argues that the public interest favors retaining the matter in

this Court because there is no evidence of any conflicts of law

between Canada and the United States. Id.

The Supreme Court has provided the district courts with a

list of private and public factors to consider in a motion to

dismiss for forum non conveniens. Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at

508-509. Additionally, a district court considering such a

motion must decide whether the moving party has established “such

oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion

to plaintiff’s convenience, which may be shown to be slight or

nonexistent.” Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Wood,

588 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Dole Food Co. V. Watts,

303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 21 of 24
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

22

The private interest factors to be considered include:

(1) the residence of the parties and witnesses; (2) the forum’s

convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and

other sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be

compelled to testify; (5) the cost of bringing witnesses to

trial; (6) the enforceability of the judgment; and (7) any

practical problems or other factors that contribute to an

efficient resolution. Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 433 F.3d

1163, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Loya, 583 F.3d at 664. The

Plaintiffs point out in their brief that much of the necessary

information is not located in Nicaragua or Canada, but in the

United States. Plaintiffs’ Resp., 8. This includes, inter alia,

Plaintiffs’ medical records and bills regarding their medical

care following the incident, Plaintiffs’ employment records,

Plaintiffs’ legal representation; documentation regarding mine

operations and procedures; and various experts. Id. B2 Gold

does not assert which witnesses would be unduly inconvenienced,

strained by having to travel to this forum, nor does it cite what

evidence will be difficult to obtain or reproduce should

litigation proceed in California. Additionally, the significant

costs that will be associated with having to translate documents

from English into Spanish, should the matter be dismissed and

refiled in Nicaragua, must be considered. 

The critical inquiry is not the number of witnesses or

quantity of evidence in each locale. Instead, the Court must

determine the “materiality and importance of the anticipated

evidence and witness’ testimony and then determine their

accessibility and convenience to the forum.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 22 of 24
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

23

Tuazon, 433 F.3d at 1181. As the Ninth Circuit explained in

Tuazon, any court will face administrative challenges when

acquiring evidence from abroad. Id. In the instant case, the

Plaintiffs’ medical records and Vezer’s files are in the United

States, B2 Gold’s files are in Canada; and the accident site is

in Nicaragua. In such circumstances, where evidence may exist in

multiple locations, it would be far more efficient to relocate

individual witnesses to this forum than to force the entire trial

to relocate to either Nicaragua or Canada and begin the process

over again.

B2 Gold has also presented no evidence as to whether a

judgment of a Nicaraguan court would be enforceable in the United

States. Additionally, even assuming that Canada is a more

convenient forum for B2 Gold, the Plaintiffs have chosen a forum

based on the location of the principle defendant, Vezer. This

factor must weigh against dismissing the action and, on balance,

the private interest factors weigh against dismissal. 

The five public interest factors for the Court to consider

in a forum non conveniens motion are: (1) the local interest in

the lawsuit; (2) the court’s familiarity with the governing law;

(3) the burden on local courts and juries; (4) congestion in the

court, and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to a

particular forum. Tuazon, 433 F.3d at 1181-1182. 

As previously established, California has a significant

interest in the litigation because it is the home to the primary

defendant. Additionally, as the Tuazon court observed, juries

“routinely address subjects that are totally foreign to them.”

Id. 

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 23 of 24
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

24

The matter before this Court is a personal injury claim, an issue

that is not alien to American juries. Additionally, without any

evidence suggesting otherwise, this Court cannot assume that the

congestion faced by Canadian or Nicaraguan courts is any greater

or smaller a burden than that faced by this court. As a

consequence, the public interest factors also weigh against

dismissal here on forum non conveniens grounds.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Third-Party Defendant B2 Gold’s

12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) is DENIED. B2 Gold’s

alternative request for dismissal on grounds of forum non

conveniens (also contained within Docket No. 24) is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02850-TLN-CKD Document 47 Filed 07/23/10 Page 24 of 24