NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 t he 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 APPEALS2

order granting Crazy Bottling Company, LLC and Famous Mineral Water Company LP ’s (“ D efendants”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Vita Water also appeals the district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery. We
h ave jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vita Water, a California company, contacted the D efendants

— both Texas companies

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

. Although the parties discussed enter ing 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 th at 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 D efendants 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 un controverted allegations in the complaint as true and resolve co nflicts 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 depend s on the
existence of a contra ct 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

. T he D efendants are not subject to specific juri sdiction 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 th e 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 d oes 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 Pi cot , 780 F.3d at 1212.4

T he parties’ negotiations do not show that the D efendants “reach[ed] out ” to the forum state. Bu rger K ing v. Rudzewicz , 47 1 U.S. 462 , 473 ( 1985 ). The
D efendants do not advertise or distribute in California , and Vita Water

— not the
D efendants

— initiated the transaction

. T he partie s negotiated v ia phone and
email , and the D efendants’ 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, 7 60

– 61 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)

. The
D efendants’ 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 Holla nd 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 f

ailed to sign a long

- term contract, a nd 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, w e 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 D efendants did not
have a s ubstantial role in any actions that would have “invok[ed] the benefits and protections” of California law

. Picot , 780 F.3d at 1211. Th ough they connected Vita Water to a potential shipper, the D efendants did not coordinate ship ment to California . Simila rly, the D efendants provided the label sizing requirements to Vita Water, but they did not participate in designing the labels. And the
D efendants’ names do not appear anywhere on the labels , suggesting th ey had no
intent to advertise in California

. The evidence therefore shows that the
D efendants’ 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 D efendants purposefully avail ed themselves of “the privilege of conducting
activities ” in California

. Picot , 780 F.3d at 1212. T h ey are thus not s ubject to personal jurisdiction in California.
3. T he district court did not improperly resolve factual disputes in the
D efendants’ favor. See Schwarzenegger , 374 F.3d at 802. First, i t accepted Vita Water’s claim that the parties inten ded to enter a long

- term contra c t

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

. S ee AMA Multimedia , 970 F.3d at 1207. Second, the district court appropriately6

conclude d that the parties had a limited co

- pack ing relationship, as their emails
show that the D efendants 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 D efendants’ claim that they were un aware of Vita Wate r’s California client base

. Rather, i t conducted its analysis assuming that the
D efendants 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 s ought discovery on each of the alleged factual disputes discussed above. But the district court properly consider ed 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 addi tional 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.