N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C R YSTAL C R

UISES, INC .; C R

Y STAL SHIP THREE B AHAM AS LIM ITED, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. M OTEUR S LER OY-SOM ER S. A.; LER OY-SOM ER ; EM ER SON ELEC T R IC C OM PANY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-55338 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-08736-PSG-JC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 7, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOODW IN, FISHER , a nd C LIFTON, C irc u i t Judge s. 

# F IL ED NOV 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Pla intiffs C ry sta l C ruise s, Inc . a nd C ry sta l Ship Thre e (B aham a s) Lim ite d (c olle c tive ly , “ C ry sta l” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs: (1) dismissing Fre nc h c orporate de fe nda

nts M ote urs Le roy -Som e r S.A. (“ M ote urs” ) and Le roy -Som e r for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion; (2) gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t in fa

v or of Em e rson Ele c tric C om

pa ny (“ Em e rson” ); a

nd (3) de ny ing C ry sta l ’ s re que st for a d ditiona l disc ove ry . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm . W e re vie w d

e nov o the distric t c ourt’ s rulings re ga rding pe rsona l jurisdic tion and sum m ary judgm e nt. Pac . Shore

s Props., LLC

v . C ity of N e w port Be ac h , 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th C ir. 2013); Sc hw arze ne gge r v . Fre d

Martin Motor C

o. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of C ry sta l’ s re que s t for a dditional disc ove ry for an a buse of disc re tion. Mic h e lman v . Linc oln N at’l Life Ins. C o . , 685 F.3d 887, 892 (9th C i r. 2012). The distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t C ry sta l fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t M ote urs a nd Le roy -Som e r ha d a de quate “ c o ntinuous a nd sy s te m atic ” c onta c ts with C a lifornia to support a sse rtion of ge ne ra l pe rsona l jurisdic tion. G oody e ar Dunlop Tire s Ope rations, S.A. v. Brow n , 131 S.C t. 2846, 2854 (2011) (e la borating on the c irc um s ta nc e s tha t wa rrant a n e xe rc i se of ge ne ra l jurisdic t ion). C ry sta l’ s a rgum e nt that Em e rson’ s in-sta

te c onta c ts should be

attribute d to M ote urs a

nd Le roy -Som e r for jurisdic tiona l purpose s la c ks m e rit. C o rporations a re tre at e d a s se pa

rate and 2distinc t e n titie s and “ the pre se nc e of one . . . in a forum sta te m ay not be attribute d to the othe r” for de te rm ining jurisdiction. Holland Am. Line Inc . v . W a rtsila N . Am., Inc . , 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th C ir. 2007). C ry sta l fa ils to de m onstra te tha t a ny e xc e ption to this rule

a p plie s. Bauman v . Daimle rC hry sle r C orp. , 644 F.3d 909, 920-23 (9th C ir. 2011) (e xpla ining the“ a lte r e go” an d “ a ge n c y ” te sts use d to support thee xe rc ise of pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r a fore ign pa

re nt c o m pa ny by virtue of its re lationship to a subsidia ry ), c e rt. granted , 133 S.C t. 1995 (2013). The re fore , the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly dism isse d the Fre nc h subsidia rie s for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Goody e ar , 131 S.C t. at 2854. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt for Em e rson be c a use C ry sta l fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t re le va nt to Em e rson be ing vic a riously lia b l e for a lle ge dly de fe c t ive ge ne rators tha t M ote urs de signe d a

nd m anufa c ture d . C

.A.R. Transp. Brok

e rageC o., Inc . v . Darde n Re

staurants, Inc . , 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha t the burde n “ re sts upon the pa rty a sse rting thee xiste nc e of the a ge nc y and se e king to c h arge the princ ipa l with the re pre se ntation of thea ge n t” ) (quoting Ingle w ood Te a c h e rs Ass’n v . Pub. Emp’t Re lations Bd. , 227 C a l. App. 3d 767, 780 (1991)); se e also Am. W ay C e llular, Inc . v . Trav e le rs Prop. C

as. C o. , 216 C a l. App. 4th 1040, 1052-53 (2013).

3The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C ry sta l ’ s m otion to re ope n disc ove ry

be fore c onside ring Em e rson’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. The de nia l of a

re que s t for a

c ontinua nc e of sum

m ary judgm e nt pe nding furthe r disc ove ry is a n a buse of disc re tion “ only if the pa rty re que s ting a

c ontinua nc e c an show tha t a llowing a dditional disc ove ry would ha ve pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt.” Linc oln , 685 F.3d a t 892. C ry sta l ha s fa ile d to m ake this showing. AFFIRM E D.

4