N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SALEB UILD, INC ., DB A Sa le sify ; SALEB UILD ITES PVT. LTD., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. FLEXISALES, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15085

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01403-JAD-GWF
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s a nd M O SKOW ITZ, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 31 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously vote d to gra

n t the Joint M otion by

All Pa rtie s to Subm it the C a se for De c ision on the B rie fs. *** The Honora

ble B arry Te d M oskowitz , C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by

de s igna tion.Pla intiffs-Appe l la nts Sa le build, Inc . (“ Sa le build” ) and Sa le build ITES Privat e Lim ite d

(“ Sa le b uild India ” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l on f orum non c onv e nie ns grounds of the ir c la im s a ga inst De fe nda nt-Appe lle e Fle xisa le s, Inc
. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision dism i ssing a c a se for forum non c onv e nie ns for a b use of disc re tion. C

arijano v . Oc c i de n tal Pe trole um C o rp. , 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

fa iling to gra

nt prope r de fe re nc e to the Pla i ntiffs’ c h oic e of forum
and by im prope rly ba la nc ing the public and priva te inte re st fa c tors, we re ve rse and
re m and. First, the distric t c ourt did not gra nt prope r de fe re nc e to Pla intiffs’ c hoic e of forum be c a use it c onc lude d tha

t Pla ntiffs we re fore i gn. W

hile Sa le build India

is inc o rporate d in India , Sa le build is a De l aware c o rporation, a

nd the pre se nc e of a fore ign c o-pla intiff doe s not le sse n the de fe re n c e owe d a dom e stic pla intiff. Se e C arijano , 643 F.3d a

t 1229. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt im prope rly we i ghe d the priva

te inte re st fa c t ors in
c onc luding tha

t the y favore d dism issa l. One , the c ourt c onc lude d tha t the re side nc e of the pa rtie s and witne sse s favore d India , but two of the thre e nam e d pa rtie s to the la wsuit a re c o rporations re siding in the Unite d State s. Two, it e rre d in de te rm ining that the c orporate le a de rship of a ll the c om p anie s re side s in India . Fle x isa le s’ 2Pre side nt a

nd Tre a sure r live s in the Unite d State s, a s doe s Sa le build’ s C hie f Fina nc ia l Offic e r. Thre e , the c ourt c onc lude d tha t the c la i m s a

re prim arily

“ be twe e n Sa le build India

and Fle xisa le s India

and involvethe a c ts of form e r e m ploy e e s of Sa le build India and c urre nt e m ploy e e s of Fle xisa le s India using
c om pute r hardware loc a te d in India ,” but the a lle g ations in the c om pla int foc use d on the sa le by

one Am e ric an c om

pa ny (Fle xisa le s) of the proprie ta ry inform ation be longing to a

nothe r Am e ric an c om

pa ny (Sa le build) to Am e ric a

n c lie nts. This sugge s ts tha

t the a lle g e d injury , if a

ny , wa s suffe re d in the Unite d State s. Four, the
c ourt c onc lude d tha

t the like ly

ne e d for disc ove ry

from pe rsons or c o m

pa nie s in othe r parts of the Unite d State s did not we i gh in fa v or of m a i nta i ning jurisdic tion be c a use the pe rsons or c om

p anie s we re not loc at e d in Ne va da . Howe ve r, this
m isinte rpre ts this fa c t or in the forum non c onv e nie ns an a l y s is, whic h c onside rs not whe the r Ne va da

is the pe rfe c t forum , but ra the r whe the r the Unite d State s or India provide s be tte r a c c e ss. Se e , e .g. , Pipe r Airc raft C

o. v . Re y no , 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981) (c om

pa ring the e a se of a c c e ss to proof in the Unite d State s a

nd Gre at B rita in); Lue c k

v . Sundstrand C

orp. , 236 F.3d 1137, 1146 (9th C ir. 2001) (c om pa ring “ Unite d State s e vide nc e ” loc ate d in Ariz ona and W a shington to “

Ne w Ze a la nd e vide nc e ” to de t e rm ine if a c a se should be trie d in Ariz ona ).

3The distric t c ourt did not c onside r se ve ra l othe r private inte re st fa c tors,

inc l uding there lat ive c osts of tria l in India and the Unite d Stat e s a

nd the
e nforc e a bility of the judgm e nt. B ut “ in this a ge of robust vide o c o nfe re n c ing te c hnology , one would e xpe c t re lative trave l c osts to bea non-issue , re ga

rdle ss of the p re c ise num

be r of witne sse s pre se nt in e ithe r loc a le
. ” In re He rbe rt , Nos. C IV. 13-00452 DKW , C IV. 13-00705 DKW , 2014 W L 1464837, a t *6 (D. Ha

w. Apr. 14, 2014). And give

n tha t Fle xisa le s is a

c om pa ny inc orporate d in the Unite d Stat e s tha t c onduc ts busine ss with c ustom e rs from the Unite d

Stat e s, it se e m s like ly tha t the re v e nue from that busine s s would beav a i la ble to c olle c t

on a judgm e nt in a

n Am e ric an c o urt. Ta

ke n a s a whole , the priva

te inte re st fa c tors we igh in fa

vor of m a i nta ining jurisdic tion. The distric t c ourt a l so e rre d in c onc luding tha t the public inte re st fa c tors we ighe d in fa

vor of dismissa l. It fa ile d to c o nside r Ne va d a ’ s “ signific ant inte re st in providing a

forum for those ha

rm e d by the a c tions of its c orporate c itiz e ns.” C arijano , 643 F.3d a

t 1232. In a ddition, it note d tha t the a lle ge d sa le s of Sa le build’ s proprie t ary

inform ation took plac e in Ne w York a nd C a lifornia

ra the r tha n Ne va da , but a

c ourt “ ne e d not hold”tha t the forum

sta te “ ‘ is the princ ipa l loc u s’ of the c a se or . . . ‘ ha s m ore of an inte re st tha n a ny othe r jurisdic tion’ in orde r to c onc lude tha

t [it] ha s a m e aningful intere st in th[e ] litiga tion.” Boston 4Te le c omms. Grp., Inc . v . W o od , 588 F.3d 1201, 1212 (9th C ir. 2009). M o re ove r, be c a use Fle xisa le s is a

Ne va d a re s ide nt, the la

w s uit wa s not “unre late d” to the Ne va da forum
. Se e Tuazon v
. R.J
. Re y nolds Tobac c o C

o. , 433 F.3d 1163, 1182 (9th C ir. 2006) (finding tha t a c a se wa s “ re late d to” the forum be c a use one of the pa rtie s re side d the re ). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t it wa s not c le a

r tha t the
c a se would ta

ke any le ss tim e in Ne va da

tha n it would in India , a

nd tha t the re wa s no e vide n c e tha

t the c osts of re solving the suit in India

we ighe d for or a ga inst dism issa l. While the c ourt we nt on to de sc ribe the se c onside ra tions a s supporting dism issa l, the y

are in fa c t ne utra l. Ta

ke n a longsidethe c onside ra tions de sc ribe d
a bove , the public inte re st fa c t ors we igh a ga inst dism issa l. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion in finding tha t India is a m ore c o nve nie nt forum for this a c tion. The re fore , Pla i ntiffs m ay pursue the ir
a c tion in the forum

the y se le c te d. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5