NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVARE LA VITA WATER, LLC, a 

California Limited Liability Company, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CRAZY BOTTLING COMPANY, LLC; 

FAMOUS MINERAL WATER 

COMPANY, LP, DBA Famous Mineral 

Water Company, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-16513 

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-07497-DMR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 6, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge.

Salvare La Vita Water, LLC, (“Vita Water”) appeals the district court’s 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the 

FILED

JUL 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

order granting Crazy Bottling Company, LLC and Famous Mineral Water 

Company LP’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Vita Water also appeals the district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vita Water, a California company, contacted the Defendants — both Texas 

companies — to order bottled water for a California customer, Apple Inc. 

Although the parties discussed entering a long-term contract, they failed to do so 

and instead opted for a single purchase order. Upon delivery of the bottles, the 

customer reported that the water contained brown particles, which apparently 

turned out to be live protozoa. Apple canceled its contract with Vita Water, and 

Vita Water sued the Defendants in the Northern District of California for breach of 

contract and related claims.

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Picot v.

Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015). Though we take uncontroverted 

allegations in the complaint as true and resolve conflicts in Vita Water’s favor, 

“disputed allegations in the complaint that are not supported with evidence or 

affidavits cannot establish jurisdiction.” AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 

F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Apr. 8, 2021) (No. 

20-1430).

District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
3 

1. To determine whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum 

state to establish specific jurisdiction, we employ either a “purposeful availment” 

or “purposeful direction” test. Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212. Vita Water argues that the 

district court improperly applied the purposeful availment test when it should have 

applied the purposeful direction test. But purposeful availment applies to “claims 

sounding in contract,” id., and here, each of Vita Water’s claims depends on the 

existence of a contract between the parties, even if some of them are styled as tort 

claims. Thus, the claims sound in contract, and the purposeful availment test 

applies to Vita Water’s claims. See Stanford Ranch, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 89 F.3d 

618, 625 (9th Cir. 1996). 

2. The Defendants are not subject to specific jurisdiction in California. 

When analyzing minimum contacts using the purposeful availment test, we ask 

“whether a defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of 

conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and 

protections of its laws.” Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred 

Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)) (cleaned up). Because “a 

contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts,” Boschetto v. 

Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), we must examine the parties’ prior 

negotiations, the contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contract, and 

the parties’ actual course of dealing, see Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212.
4 

The parties’ negotiations do not show that the Defendants “reach[ed] out” to 

the forum state. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473 (1985). The 

Defendants do not advertise or distribute in California, and Vita Water — not the 

Defendants — initiated the transaction. The parties negotiated via phone and

email, and the Defendants’ representatives never traveled to California. In similar 

circumstances, we have found that purposeful availment has not been satisfied. 

See Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 621–22 (9th Cir. 1991); Gray & Co. v. 

Firstenberg Mach. Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760–61 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The 

Defendants’ knowledge of Vita Water’s California customer base does not alter

this conclusion, as foreseeability of causing harm in the forum state, without more, 

is insufficient for purposeful availment. See Holland Am. Line, Inc. v. Wartsila N. 

Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007).

Regarding the future consequences, there is no evidence of “any continuing 

commitments assumed by [d]efendants under the contract.” Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 

1017. The parties failed to sign a long-term contract, and their emails show that 

they agreed to only a single purchase order without future obligations. This factor 

thus weighs against purposeful availment. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479–80. 

And for the terms of the contract, we have previously found isolated transactions 

like this one to be insufficient for purposeful availment. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 

1019; Gray, 913 F.2d at 761.
5 

Finally, the parties’ course of dealing shows that the Defendants did not 

have a substantial role in any actions that would have “invok[ed] the benefits and 

protections” of California law. Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211. Though they connected 

Vita Water to a potential shipper, the Defendants did not coordinate shipment to

California. Similarly, the Defendants provided the label sizing requirements to 

Vita Water, but they did not participate in designing the labels. And the 

Defendants’ names do not appear anywhere on the labels, suggesting they had no 

intent to advertise in California. The evidence therefore shows that the 

Defendants’ connection to California arose because Vita Water happened to do 

business there, and that is insufficient for purposeful availment. See Burger King, 

471 U.S. at 475; Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212.

Considering the above factors collectively, Vita Water has not shown that

the Defendants purposefully availed themselves of “the privilege of conducting 

activities” in California. Picot, 780 F.3d at 1212. They are thus not subject to 

personal jurisdiction in California.

3. The district court did not improperly resolve factual disputes in the 

Defendants’ favor. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. First, it accepted Vita 

Water’s claim that the parties intended to enter a long-term contract. But based on 

the documentary evidence, it properly found that no such contract was finalized. 

See AMA Multimedia, 970 F.3d at 1207. Second, the district court appropriately
6 

concluded that the parties had a limited co-packing relationship, as their emails 

show that the Defendants had a minimal role in shipping and labeling, and Vita

Water presented no evidence indicating more substantial involvement. Finally, the 

court did not accept the Defendants’ claim that they were unaware of Vita Water’s 

California client base. Rather, it conducted its analysis assuming that the 

Defendants knew about the California customers, thereby resolving the conflict in 

Vita Water’s favor. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800.

4. We review the district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse 

of discretion. AMA Multimedia, 970 F.3d at 1207. Vita Water sought discovery 

on each of the alleged factual disputes discussed above. But the district court 

properly considered Vita Water’s evidence and resolved conflicts in its favor, so “a 

more satisfactory showing of the facts” is unnecessary. Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the 

Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Vita Water has also offered no

explanation as to how additional discovery would affect the personal jurisdiction 

analysis. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020. The district court thus did not abuse its 

discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery. See Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093.

AFFIRMED.1

1 Defendants’ motion to take judicial notice is GRANTED.