N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDWARD FEINSTEIN, individually and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIM ITED, a C an a dia n c orporation; DOES, 1 to10, inc lusive , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-56225 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-03351-JFW -FFM
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 John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 16, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
MAY22 2020 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Edwa

rd Fe inste in a

p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Four Se a s ons Hote ls Lim ite d’ s (“ Four Se a son’ s” ) m otion to dism iss for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion a

nd de ny i ng Fe i nste in le ave to file a se c ond a m e nde d c om pla int. W e
re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of a m otion to dism

iss de novo, a

nd a de nia l of le ave to a m e nd for a

n a b use of disc re tion. C

hinatown N

e ighborhood Ass’n v

. Harris , 794 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C ir. 2015). W e a ffirm the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r. Four Se a sons, he a d qua

rte re d in C ana da , owns or m ana ge s ove r 100 prope rtie s a c ross the world. Se ve n prope rtie s are in C a lifornia . Four Se a sons pa rtne rs with Sa

b re Hospita l ity

Solutions Sy

nXis C e ntre R e se rvations Sy ste m (“ Sa bre ” ), a third-pa rty e le c t ronic booking pla

t form through whic h use rs m ake
re se rvations with hote ls a nd tra ve l a g e nc ie s. In 2017, Sa bre disc ove re d tha

t an
una uthoriz e d pa

rty ha d a c c e sse d

inform ation a

b out a subse t of re s e rvations proc e s se d through its sy ste m . The bre a c h did not c om prom ise any

re s e rvations
m a de through Four Se a sons’ we bsite , with its ma in re se rvation offic e , or with a ny of its hote ls dire c tly
. Afte rwards, c ounse l in this c a s e file d a puta tive c la ss a c tion a ga inst Sa bre
re late d to the data

bre a c h, whic h wa s dism isse d with pre judic e . Se e Smith v . Sabre C orp. , No. 2:17-c v -05149-SVW -AFM (C .D. C a l. Ja n. 23, 2018) (EC F 36). C ounse l a lso file d suits a ga inst se ve ra l hote ls a ffilia te d with Sa bre a lle ging the
2bre a c h viola te d va rious sta te la ws, whic h

we re late r dism isse d e ithe r by c ourt orde r or by pla intiffs volunta

rily
. Se e J

ac k son v . Loe w

s Hote ls, Inc

. , No. 5:18-c v-00827- DM G-JC , 2019 W L 2619656 (C .D. C a l. Ja n. 4, 2019); Balsamo v . K impton Hote l & Re st. Grp., LLC

, No. 2:18-c v-03356-R -GJS (C
. D. C a l. July 13, 2018) (EC F 14); C ruz v . Tw o Rds. Hosp. LLC , No. 2:18-c v-03357-M W F-M R W (C .D. C a l . Aug. 31, 2018) (EC F 19); Hsiao v . SBE EN T Holdings, LLC

, No. 2:18-c v -03358-JAK-AS (C .D. C a l. Se pt. 14, 2018) (EC F 23). Pla intiff Edwa

rd Fe i nste i n, a

c itiz e n a nd re side nt of C a l ifornia , the n file d a puta tive c la ss a c tion suit aga inst Four Se a sons on be ha lf of him se lf a nd a ll sim ila rly situa te d re side n ts “ who ha

ve m a de a booking a

t a ny of [Four Se a sons’ ] hote ls” during thedata

bre a c h pe riod, a lle ging viola t ions of sta

te la w s re l ate d to the Sa bre bre a c h. Four Se a sons m o ve d to dismiss on se ve ra l grounds, inc luding la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. W ithout wa iting for a ruling from the distric t

c o urt, Fe inste in file d a

n am e nde d c om

pla int, a lle ging tha

t but for Four Se a son’ s

“ busine ss a c tivitie s a s a

‘ m ana ge r of North Am e ric an hote ls’ within the State of C a lifornia ,” he and othe r c la ss m e m be rs would not ha

ve be e n a ble to book Four Se a sons room s. Fe inste in fa ils to be ar his burde n of showing tha

t jurisdic tion is a

p propria te . Se e Sc h w arze ne

gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C

o ., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th C ir. 2004).
3On a

p pe a l, Fe inste in a

p pe a rs to a c knowle dge the insuffic ie n c y of the a lle gations in his first a m e n de d c om

pla int, de sc ribing to the

distric t c ourt a lle g ations hewould
a dd to thec om

p la int a nd a rguing tha

t “ h e should bea

ble to sa v e his c om

pla int” by
am e nding y e t a ga in. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing Fe inste in’ s c om pla i nt without le ave to a m e nd. Se eMissouri e

x re l. K oste r v . Harris , 847 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th C ir. 2017). Eve n his propose d se c ond a m e nde d c om

pla int would not a

lle ge suffic i e nt fa c ts to support pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Se e Amba Mk tg. Sy s ., Inc
. v . J

obar Int’l, Inc

. , 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th C ir. 1977). 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 Fe inste in’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e [DE 15] of m ate ria ls tha t we re public ly ava ila ble sinc e 2011 is DE NIE D. Se e J e spe rson v . Harrah’s Ope rating C o. , 444 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2006). 4