Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01565/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01565-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & 

FRAGRANCES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

VAN EEGHEN INTERNATIONAL B.V. 

and DEFRANCESCO & SONS, INC., 

 Defendants. /

DEFRANCESCO & SONS, INC., 

 Cross-Complainant, 

v. 

VAN EEGHEN INTERNATIONAL B.V., 

 Cross-Defendant. / 

No. Civ. S-06-cv-1565 DFL KJM 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiff International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. 

(“International Flavors”) alleges that it suffered substantial 

financial loss when it had to recall or destroy products that 

incorporated irradiated onion powder received from defendants 

Van Eeghen International B.V. (“Van Eeghen”) and DeFrancesco & 

Sons, Inc. (“DeFrancesco”). Van Eeghen bought the onion powder 

from DeFrancesco, the manufacturer, and sold it to International 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 11
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

Flavors. After International Flavors brought suit, DeFrancesco 

filed a cross claim against Van Eeghen, seeking equitable 

contribution and indemnification. Van Eeghen now moves to 

dismiss both International Flavors and DeFrancesco’s claims for 

lack of personal jurisdiction and on the grounds of forum non 

conveniens. For the reasons below, the court DENIES the motion. 

I. 

Beginning in the 1980s, Van Eeghen signed successive 

contracts with International Flavors to supply onion powder to 

International Flavors’s wholly owned subsidiary in the 

Netherlands, International Flavors Nederland. Both Van Eeghen 

and International Flavors Nederland are Dutch companies with 

their principal place of business in the Netherlands. 

International Flavors is a New York corporation with its 

principal place of business in New York. 

This case involves contracts that International Flavors 

entered into with Van Eeghen from 2003-2005. These contracts 

specified that Van Eeghen must buy the onion powder from 

DeFrancesco, a California corporation that produces various food 

products. International Flavors alleges that these contracts 

also stipulated that the onion powder could not be irradiated.1 

When Van Eeghen needed to buy onion powder for International 

Flavors, it would place orders with DeFrancesco via email. 

Since 1994, Van Eeghen had purchased food products from 

DeFrancesco, aside from the onion powder it sold to 

 

1 Irradiation is a technique to destroy bacteria and fungi 

in foodstuffs. Many of International Flavors’s customers, 

however, are in Europe and Japan, both of which have stringent 

requirements regarding the irradiation of food ingredients. 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 11
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

International Flavors. In 1994, Van Eeghen also became the 

exclusive distributor for DeFrancesco in continental Europe and 

Scandinavia for dehydrated onion and garlic products. Van 

Eeghen’s employees visited DeFrancesco in California every 12-18 

months to discuss ongoing business and to tour the facilities 

and fields. 

In March 2005, International Flavors discovered that a 

batch of onion powder it received from Van Eeghen was 

irradiated. DeFrancesco had blended irradiated onion powder 

with non-irradiated onion powder because poor crop conditions 

led to a shortage of the latter. DeFrancesco contends that Van 

Eeghen’s agent, Fred Hoyng, approved the inclusion of irradiated 

onion powder during one of his visits to DeFrancesco’s 

California facilities. International Flavors subsequently had 

to recall or destroy products containing the irradiated powder. 

On January 23, 2006, International Flavors filed suit 

against Van Eeghen and DeFrancesco in federal court in New York. 

On July 2006, that court transferred the action to the Eastern 

District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1306(a). On October 

30, 2006, DeFrancesco filed a cross claim against Van Eeghen, 

seeking equitable contribution and indemnification. 

II. 

A. Personal Jurisdiction 

International Flavors and DeFrancesco allege that this 

court has specific personal jurisdiction over Van Eeghen. 

Specific personal jurisdiction exists when: “(1) the 

defendant has performed some act or consummated some transaction 

within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed [itself] of 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 11
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

the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the 

claim arises out of or results from the defendant’s forumrelated activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is 

reasonable.”2 Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 

223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs carry the 

burden to satisfy the first two factors. Schwarzenegger, 374 

F.3d at 802. If plaintiffs succeed, defendants then shoulder 

the burden “to present a compelling case that the exercise of 

jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id.

1. Purposeful Availment 

In light of Van Eeghen’s alleged contacts and course of 

activity with DeFrancesco, Van Eeghen purposefully availed 

itself of the privilege of conducting business in California. 

Under its contract with International Flavors, Van Eeghen 

agreed to buy its onion powder from DeFrancesco. Moreover, 

after signing the agreements, Van Eeghen instigated the 

purchases of onion powder from DeFrancesco by reaching out to 

DeFrancesco via email to place orders. Further, Van Eeghen 

employees visited DeFrancesco in California every 12 to 18 

months “to discuss ongoing business.” (Van Eeghen Dec. ¶ 7.) 

From 2003 to 2005, Van Eeghen’s employees made two such visits. 

(Van Eeghen Dec. II ¶ 2.) DeFrancesco claims that Van Eeghen 

toured and inspected its fields and facilities, and, at least on 

one occasion, the parties discussed matters concerning the 

 

2 The jurisdictional analyses under state and federal law 

are the same in this case because California’s long-arm 

jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process 

requirements. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 

797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 11
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

production of onion powder for International Flavors. 

(DeFrancesco Dec. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Indeed, one of the central factual 

disputes concerns a conversation that occurred in California 

between agents of Van Eeghen and DeFrancesco. According to 

DeFrancesco, Van Eeghen’s agent, Fred Hoyng, approved supplying 

International Flavors with irradiated onion powder during his 

visit. (DeFrancesco ¶ 7.) Although Van Eeghen takes a 

different view of what was discussed, it does not deny that 

Hoyng was present to view DeFrancesco’s operations. In 

resolving this motion, the court must view the facts in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff and will assume that the 

issue of irradiated onion powder was discussed. Schwarzenegger, 

374 F.3d at 800. The combination of Van Eeghen’s California 

directed activities, particularly its employee’s alleged consent 

to DeFrancesco’s use of irradiated onion powder on a trip to 

DeFrancesco’s California operation, constitutes purposeful 

availment. 

2. Arises Out of Forum Activities 

For the same reasons, this dispute arises from Van Eeghen’s 

forum-related activities. 

3. Reasonableness 

Finally, Van Eeghen has failed to present a compelling case 

as to why it would be unreasonable for the court to exercise 

specific jurisdiction in this case. 

Courts must balance seven factors when deciding the 

reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction over a nonresident 

defendant: “1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful 

interjection into the forum state’s affairs; 2) the burden on 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 5 of 11
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

the defendant; 3) conflicts of law between the forum and 

defendant’s home jurisdiction; 4) the forum’s interest in 

adjudicating the dispute; 5) the most efficient judicial 

resolution of the dispute; 6) the plaintiff’s interest in 

convenient and effective relief; and 7) the existence of an 

alternative forum.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 623 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

The first factor weighs in favor of DeFrancesco. Van 

Eeghen’s forum-related activities allegedly include the 

permission to use irradiated onion powder that is the core of 

this dispute It is quite obvious that “what was said in 

California by Hyong” will be at the center of any trial. 

The second factor weighs in favor of Van Eeghen. Van 

Eeghen, a Dutch company, likely would experience some hardships 

if required to defend this case in California. See Asahi Metal 

Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987) (“The 

unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a 

foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing 

the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal 

jurisdiction over national borders.”); see also FDIC v. BritishAmerican Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding 

that “[when] the defendant ‘has done little to reach out to the 

forum state,’ the burden of defending itself in a foreign forum 

militates against exercising jurisdiction”) (citation omitted). 

It does not have a California office. And most of its witnesses 

allegedly are in the Netherlands and would require translators. 

The conflicts-of-law factor weighs in favor of 

International Flavors and DeFrancesco. The contracts provide 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 6 of 11
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

that New Jersey law will apply. See FDIC, 828 F.2d at 1444 

(considering choice of law provision when weighing the conflicts 

of law factor). 

The fourth factor, the forum state’s interests, weighs in 

favor of International Flavors and DeFrancesco. DeFrancesco is 

a California corporation with its principal place of business in 

California.3 While “private commercial matters” do not raise 

significant state interests, see Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner & 

Hausser GMBH, 354 F.3d 857, 868 (9th Cir. 2003), DeFrancesco 

also pleads a tort claim—negligent representation—against Van 

Eeghen. See Sinatra v. National Enquirer, 854 F.2d 1191, 1200 

(9th Cir. 1988) (noting that California has a strong interest in 

providing a means of redress for residents who are tortiously 

injured). 

The fifth factor is neutral. Courts look to the location 

of the evidence and witnesses when considering “the most 

efficient judicial resolution of the dispute.” Panavision 

Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998). 

While most of Van Eeghen’s witnesses are abroad, most of 

International Flavors and DeFrancesco’s witnesses are in the 

United States. 

The sixth factor, burden on plaintiffs, cuts in favor of 

International Flavors and DeFrancesco. DeFrancesco is a 

 

3 In its reply, Van Eeghen argues that DeFrancesco is outof-business and that California does not have any interest in 

resolving this dispute because “the only interested party 

relative to DeFrancesco would be its insurance carrier.” 

Because this argument was tendered for the first time in the 

reply brief, the court is not in a position to evaluate it. 

Even if true, the forum state may still have an interest in 

protecting the insurance carrier, if any, or the former owners. 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 7 of 11
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

California resident. See Roth 942 F.2d at 624 (“[N]o doctorate 

in astrophysics is required to deduce that trying a case where 

one lives is almost always a plaintiff’s preference.”) And just 

as it would be expensive and burdensome for Van Eeghen to defend 

the case in California, it would be expensive and burdensome for 

DeFrancesco to pursue its claims against Van Eeghen in the 

Netherlands. 

Finally, the seventh factor, availability of an alternative 

forum, weighs in favor of Van Eeghen. “The plaintiff bears the 

burden of proving the availability of an alternative forum.” 

Core Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB., 11 F.3d 1482, 1490 (9th 

Cir. 1993). Because DeFrancesco and International Flavors 

present no evidence that the Netherlands is unsuitable as an 

alternative forum, they have failed to carry this burden here. 

In sum, Van Eeghen has shown that only two of the seven 

factors cut strongly in favor of Van Eeghen. Therefore, the 

court finds that Van Eeghen has failed to present a compelling 

case that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. 

See Roth, 942 F.2d at 625. 

B. Forum Non Conveniens 

 “A party moving in the trial court to dismiss on ground 

of forum non conveniens has the burden of showing: ‘(1) the 

existence of an adequate alternative forum, and (2) that the 

balance of private and public factors favor dismissal.’” 

Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 948, 949 

(9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). “This showing must overcome 

the ‘great deference . . . due plaintiffs because a showing of 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 8 of 11
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

convenience by a party who has sued in his home forum will 

usually outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have 

shown.” Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 

F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Netherlands is an adequate alternative forum. Van 

Eeghen is willing to submit to the jurisdiction of a Dutch 

court. See Lockman, 930 F.2d at 768 (noting that an alternative 

forum is presumptively adequate if defendants are willing to 

submit to its jurisdiction). And neither International Flavors 

nor DeFrancesco have shown that a Dutch court cannot provide an 

adequate or satisfactory remedy. Id.

A balancing of the relevant private and public factors, 

however, does not strongly favor Van Eeghen. “Private factors 

include: ease of access to sources of proof; compulsory process 

to obtain the attendance of hostile witnesses, and the cost of 

transporting friendly witnesses; and other problems that 

interfere with an expeditious trial.” Contact Lumber Co. v. 

P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“Public interest factors encompass court congestion, the local 

interest in resolving the controversy, and the preference of 

having a forum apply a law with which it is familiar.” Id. at 

1452. 

As discussed above, the first two private factors are 

neutral. While Van Eeghen’s witnesses are in the Netherlands, 

DeFrancesco and International Flavors’s witnesses are in the 

United Statess. Moreover, neither party has identified any 

hostile witnesses. 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 9 of 11
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

The third private factor also is neutral. Van Eeghen has 

filed suit against both DeFrancesco and International Flavors in 

the Netherlands. While it would be more expeditious to try all 

related cases in one forum, see id., that forum can be either 

California or the Netherlands.4 

As to the public factors, although courts in this district 

are congested, California has an interest in resolving this 

dispute. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the law of the 

Netherlands, New Jersey, or California applies in this case. 

Therefore, the court cannot determine which forum would likely 

be more familiar with the applicable law. However, the choice 

of law provision in the contracts provides for New Jersey law 

which this court can more readily determine than a court in the 

Netherlands. 

Because a balancing of the relevant private and public 

factors does not strongly favor Van Eeghen, the court declines 

to dismiss this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. 

 

4 Van Eeghen argues that it does not make sense for the 

cases to proceed here because International Flavors and 

DeFrancesco would not be able to enforce this court’s judgments 

in the Netherlands. However, DeFrancesco and International 

Flavors may seek to enforce such judgments elsewhere, either in 

the United States or in other countries where Van Eeghen 

possesses assets or conducts business. 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 10 of 11
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

III. 

For the reasons above, the court DENIES Van Eeghen’s motion 

to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 18, 2007 

 /s/ David F. Levi___________

 DAVID F. LEVI 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-01565-JAM -CKD Document 61 Filed 05/21/07 Page 11 of 11