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 HARLES E. YEAGER , “ C huc k” (R e t.); GENER AL C H UC K YEAGER , INC ., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. AIRB US GR OUP SE; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-55162 D.C . No. 8:19-c v-01793-JLS-ADS M EM O R ANDUM *

C HARLES E. YEAGER , “ C huc k” (R e t.); GENER AL C H UC K YEAGER , INC ., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. AIRB US GR OUP SE; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts. No. 21-55776

D.C . No. 8:19-c v-01793-JLS-ADS

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 Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED APR 20 2022 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.Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 4, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , S.R . THOM AS, and B E A, C irc uit Judge s. The Esta te of Ge ne ra l C ha

rle s E. Ye a ge r (“ Ge ne ra l Ye a ge r” ) 1 and the priva te c o rporate e ntity

tha t owns thefe d e ra l tra de m ark on his na m e , Ge ne ra l C ha rle s Ye a ge r, Inc ., (c olle c tive ly , “ Y e a ge r” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the c a se for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. W e have a p pe lla te jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . W e re v ie w a

dism issa l for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion denovo, but re vie w unde rly ing fa c t

ua l findings for c le ar e rror. F re e stre am Airc raft (Be rmuda) Ltd. v . Ae ro Law Grp. , 905 F.3d 597, 602 (9th C ir. 2018). “ Whe re , a s he re , a de fe nda nt’ s m otion to dism

iss is ba s e d on a

writte n re c ord a

nd no e vide ntia

ry he aring is he ld, the p la intiff ne e d o n ly

m ake a prim a fa c ie showing of jurisdictiona l fa c ts.” Pic ot v . W e s ton , 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). De nia ls of re que sts for jurisdic tiona l disc ove ry are re vie w e d for a

buse of disc re tion, se e AMA Multimed i a, LLC v . W anat , 970 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th C ir. 2020), a s a

re de nia ls of re q

ue sts for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r Se c tion 3344(a ) of the C a lifornia C ode , se eVarne

y Ent. Grp., Inc . v . Av on Plastic s, Inc . , 275 C a l . R

ptr. 3d

1 Ge ne ra l Ye a ge r pa sse d a way on De c e m

be r 7, 2020. G e ne ra l Ye a ge r’ s e sta te c ontinue s this litiga

t ion on his beha lf.

2394, 400 (C a l. C t. App. 2021), a nd unde r Se c t ion 1117(a) of the Lanha m Ac t, se e 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a); SunEarth, Inc . v . Sun Earth Solar Pow e r C o. , 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba n c ) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fam i lia

r with the p roc e dura l a

nd fa c tua l history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . I The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c a s e for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r out-of-sta te de fe nda

nts is a ppropria te

“ whe re pe rm itte d

by a long-a rm sta tute an d whe re the e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion doe s not viola te fe de ra l due proc e ss.” AMA Multime d ia , 970 F.3d a

t 1207. “ B e c a

use C a lifornia ’ s long-a

rm jurisdic tiona l sta

tute is c oe xte nsive with fe de ra l due proc e ss re quire m e nts, the jurisdic tiona l ana ly se s unde r state la w and fe de ra l due proc e ss are t he sa m e .” Boon Global Ltd. v . Dist. C t. ( In reBoon) , 923 F.3d 643, 650 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita

tion omitte d). For c a se s involving inte

ntiona l torts, a s this c a se prim arily doe s, the due proc e s s inquiry

pivots on whethe r the de fe nda nts (1) “purpose fully

dire c te d” the ir a c tivitie s towa

rd the forum ; (2) the c la im arise s out of theforum -re lat e d a c tivitie s; and (3) the e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion c om ports with fair pla

y and substa

ntia l justic e . AMA Multime dia , 970 F.3d a t 1208 (c ita

t ion om itte d); se e Pic ot , 780 F.3d a t 1212 (“ [O] ur jurisdic tiona l inquiry de pe nds on thenature of the c la im at issue .” ). To 3a lle ge purpose ful dire c tion, thepla intiff m ust c la im that the de fe n da nt “ (1) c om m itte d a n inte ntiona l a c t, (2) e xpre ssly a i m e d at the forum sta

te , (3) c a using ha rm tha t the de fe nda

nt knows is like ly

to be suffe re d in theforum sta te . ” AMA Multime dia , 970 F.3d a

t 1209. In this c a se , Ye a ge r a lle g e s tha t Airbus S.E., Airbus S.A.S., Airbus He lic opte rs, Inc . , a

n d Airbus De fe n se and Spa c e , Inc . (c olle c tive ly , “ De fe nda nts” ) use d Ge ne ra l Ye a ge r’ s na

m e and like ne ss in viola

tion of sta te and fe de ra l la

ws, a s we ll a s in viola

tion of a n a gre e m e nt prohibiting suc h use . W e a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t Ye a ge r suffic ie ntly

ple a de d two inte ntiona l a c ts: (1) Airbus S.A.S. (“Airbus” ) use d foota ge from Ge ne ra l Ye a ge r’ s Europe visit in a

sa le s vide o; a

nd (2) Airbus use d Ge ne ra l Ye a ge r’ s na m e in a pre ss re le a se -sty le pie c e publishe d on its website . Se eMorrill v . Sc o tt Fin. C orp. , 873 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th C ir. 2017) (de fining “ inte ntiona l a c t ” a s “ one de noting a n e xte rna l m a

nife sta tion of thea c tor’ s will[,] not inc l uding a ny of its re sults” (c ita tion omitte d)); se e also W alde n v . Fiore , 571 U.S. 277, 289 (2014) (a na ly z ing whe the r the “ c ha lle nge d c onduc t ha d anything to do with [the

forum Stat e ] itse lf” ). Ye a ge r did not a lle ge fa c ts showing tha t e ithe r a c t wa s e xpre ssly a im e d at C a lifornia . Ye a ge r c la i m e d only tha t the sa le s vide o e xists. Hedid not sta te tha t Airbus disse m inate d

the sa le s vide o outsideof Airbus, le t a l one tha t it distribute d 4the v ide o in C a lifornia . Se eSc hw arze ne gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C o. , 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th C ir. 2004) (c onc l uding tha t a de fe nda nt did not e xpre ssly

a im m ate ria l s at

a sta te whe n the y

we re not c irc ulate d

in the sta te , se e n by

its re side nts, or ta ilore d to theforum ). Nor did Ye a ge r a lle ge tha t the vide o wa s se e n by C a lifornia ns or tha t its c onte nt a ddre s se d the m , spe c ific a lly . Se eid. ; Ay la, LLC . v . Aly a Sk in Pty . Ltd. , 11 F.4th 972, 980 (9th C ir. 2021) (de te rm i ning tha t a ds re a ding

“ ATTENTION USA B AB ES” we re e xpre ssly a im e d at the Unite d State s). Like wise , Ye a ge r did not a lle ge tha t Airbus e xpre ssly

a i m e d its 2017 pre ss re le a se disc ussing a

produc t a nnounc e m e nt a

t the Paris Air Show a

t C a lifornia . He did not dispute

tha t the we bsite wa s pa ssive , AMA Multime dia , 970 F.3d a t 1209–10 (“A pa s sive we bsite a lone c a nnot sa tisfy the e xp re ss a i m ing prong [without] som e thing m ore — c onduc t dire c tly ta rge t ing theforum [.] ” (c i tation om i tte d)), c la im

tha t Airbus se lls a d

ve rtising on its we

b site to third-pa

rty a dve rtise rs tha

t ta rge t C a lifornia

re side nts, se eMav rix

Photo, Inc . v . Brand Te c hs., Inc , 647 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th C ir. 2011), or a sse rt tha t Airbus’ s we bsite “ a

ppe a ls to, a nd profits from , a [] [we b site ] a udie nc e in [C a lifornia ] ,” AMA Multime d ia , 970 F.3d at 1210. Ye a ge r a lso did not ide ntify c o nte nt in thepre ss re l e a se re fle c ting a n

“ inte ntiona l, e xplic i t a

ppe a l to [C a lifornia ] c onsum e rs a nd no othe rs.” Se eAly a, LLC , 11 F.4th a

t 980. 5That the se a rc h te rm “ C a lifornia ” y ie lds 190 re sults doe s not show the we bsite wa s C a lifornia -foc use d, pa rtic ula rly sinc e othe r fora

se arc h te rm s y i e ld m any m o re re s ults. Se e AMA Multimedia , 970 F.3d a t 1210 (finding no jurisdic tion, in pa

rt, be c a use 80 pe rc e nt of we bsite vie we rs we re outsidethe forum ). Sim ila

rly , the fa c t tha

t C a lifornia

ha s la rge a e rospa c e and a

v iation industrie s doe s not e sta

blish tha t a we bsite with global vie w e rship a nd sc ope wa s e xpre s sly a im e d at the sta te . Se e id. at 1210–11 (de te rm ining tha t a pa ssive we bsite wa s not e xp re ssly a im e d at the Unite d Stat e s m e re ly be c a use ne arly

20 pe rc e nt of its visitors we

re from the US and the US wa s its la rge st m arke t). Fina lly , Airbus’ s outre a c h to theYe a ge rs at the ir C a lifornia re side nc e doe s not e sta blish tha t it e xpre ssly

a i m e d its c onduc t at C a l ifornia . “ [P] hy sic a l e ntry ” via m a il “ that is m e re ly

inc ide nta l to a

n out-of-sta

te tra nsa c tion doe s not sa

tisfy the c onstitutiona

l m inim um c onta c ts re quire m e nt.” Morrill , 873 F.3d a t 1147 (m aking phone c a l ls, se nding le tte rs a n d e m a ils, m a iling doc um e nts, a nd filing va

rious c ourt doc um e nts in Ariz ona

a s pa rt of “ c om

pa nion” proc e e dings to Ne va da litiga tion did not show tha

t suc h c onduc t wa s e xpre ssly a im e d at Ariz ona ); In re Boon , 923 F.3d at 653 (“ [O] rdina

rily use of the m a ils [or] te le phone . . .sim ply do[e s] not qua lify a s purpose ful a c tivity

invoking the be ne fits a

nd prote c tion of theforum sta te .” (c ita tion omitte d)). Just a s the m a ilings a t issue in Morrill we re “ a c om pone nt 6pa

rt” of litiga

tion in a nothe r sta te , Airbus’ s outre a c h

to the Ye a ge rs at the ir C a lifornia re side nc e wa s a

c om pone nt pa rt of e n d orse m e nt ne gotia tions in Neva da , and c ontra c t ne gotia

tions in Europe . In short, thedistric t c ourt c orre c tly c o nc lude d tha

t the se a c t ions we re not e xpre s sly a im e d at the forum

sta te of C a l ifornia and tha

t the suit should be dism isse d for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. II The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to e xe rc ise jurisdic tion ba se d on a n a lle ge d ora l forum

se le c tion a gre e m e nt. Assuming, without de c iding, tha t suc h a n a gre e m e nt wa s m a de , this la wsuit fa lls outside

the sc ope of the a lle ge d a gre e m e nt. Ye a ge r a l le ge s tha

t during ne gotia

tions thethe n-C EO of Airbus S.A.S., agre e d ve rba l ly tha t “ a ny dispute s a

rising from

the ne g otia

tions for a

nd/or the c onduc ting of any e n dorse m e nt de a l would bere solve d in a c o urt of [Ye a g e r’ s] c hoosing in the sta te of C a lifornia .” Fe de ra l la w gove rns the sc ope of forum -se le c t ion c la use s. Ye i A. Sun v . Adv anc e d C

hina He althc a re

, Inc . , 901 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th C ir. 2018). Unde r fe de ra l l aw, “ forum -se le c tion c l a u se s c ove ring dispute s ‘ arising out of’ a pa rtic u la r a gre e m e nt a

p p ly only to dispute s ‘ re lat ing to theinte rpre tat ion a nd pe rform a nc e of the c ontra c t itse lf.’ ” Id. (c ita tion omitte d ); se ealso id. (stating se le c tion c l a

use s tha t c ove r dispute s “ re lating to”an a gre e m e nt a re broa de r). Thus, 7the a lle ge d a gre e m e nt he re o n ly a pplie s to la

wsuits tha

t re l ate to the inte rpre tation and pe rform anc e of the c ontra c t itse lf. The sa le s vide o at the c ore of Ye a ge r’ s c l a im did not “re lat[e ] to the inte rpre tation a

nd pe rform anc e ” of a

n e ndorse m e nt de a l or ne gotia tions with Airbus. Ye i A. Sun , 901 F.3d a t 1086. Ye a ge r ne ve r re a c h e d a n e ndorse m e nt de a l with Airbus, a

nd his ple a dings a

nd e xhibits undersc o re tha t the 2008 trip during whic h the foota ge wa s film e d wa s not for thepurpose of e ndorse m e nt ne gotia tions. M ore o ve r, Ye a ge r’ s propose d “ De a l M e m o ” spe c ific a lly sta t e d tha t

“ [e ] ndorse m e nt or the a

ppe aranc e of e ndorse m e nt [wa s] . . . not a llowe d.” Eve n if Airbus ne ve r a gre e d to theDe a l M e m o, its te xt— a l ongsideYe a ge r’ s othe r ple a dings a

nd e xhibits— supports the infe re nc e tha

t the Europe an trip wa s outside the s c ope of the ora l forum se le c tion c la

use . III The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing jurisdic tiona l disc ove ry . “ [R ] e fusa l to providesuc h disc ove ry will not be

re v e rse d e xc e pt upon the c le a re st showing tha

t de nia l of disc ove ry

re s ults in a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre j udic e to the c om

pla ining litiga

nt.” Bosc he t to v . Hansing , 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Ye a g e r’ s re que st for disc ove ry

on Airbus’ s de gre e of c o ntrol ove r its we bsite , a s we l l a s the 8ide ntitie s of thosewho c re ate d a nd distribute d the offe nding m ate ria ls, would not c la rify whe the r Airbus e xpre s sly a im e d those m ate ria ls or its we bsite at C a lifornia . Airbus’ s a

ware ne ss tha

t Ye a ge r re side d in C a lifornia is ne i the r dispute d nor re le va nt to whe the r the Airbus e xpre ssly a im e d its c onduc t at C a lifornia , spe c ific a lly . C

f. id. Abse nt a

ny a lle gations to sugge st Ye a ge r’ s re que s t wa s ba se d on “ m ore tha

n a hunc h tha

t [disc ove ry ] m ight y ie ld jurisdic tiona lly re l e va nt fa c ts,” Bosc he tto , 539 F.3d a

t 1020, t h e distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing his re que st for disc ove ry a s to whe the r Airbus ta

rge te d the C a lifornia m arke t with its we

bsite . Se ePe bbleBe ac h C o. v . C addy , 453 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th C ir. 2006). IV The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r Se c tion 3344(a

) of the C a lifornia

C ode , se eVarne

y , 61 C a l. App. 5th a

t 230, or Se c tion 1117(a

) of the La

nha m Ac t , se eSunEarth , 839 F.3d a t 1181; 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a ). W e ana l y z e De fe nda nts’ attorne y s’ fe e s c la im s c olle c tive l y be c a use Ye a ge r’ s a lle gations did not distinguish be twe e n De fe n da

nts a nd a ll c l a im s we re dism isse d unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(2).

9A

The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the thre e e ntitie s Ye a ge r sue d unde r the C a lifornia right of public ity

sta tute

— Airbus S.E., Airbus S.A.S., a

nd Airbus He liopte rs, Inc .— a re not “pre va iling pa

rtie s” unde r Se c tion 3344. Se c tion 3344 doe s not de fine “ pre v a iling pa rtie s ,” but C a lifornia c ourts look to if “

the pa rty pre va ile d on a

pra c tic a l le ve l,” Oliv ev . Ge n. N utrition C trs., Inc . , 242 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 15, 32 (C a l. C t. App. 2018), a nd “ i t is possible

for a tria l c ourt to c o nc l ude tha t ne i t he r party pre v a ile d be c a

use ne ithe r party re a liz e d its litiga tion obje c tive s,” id. at 826–27. Even if Ye a ge r’ s c la im s a re now tim e -barre d a s De fe nda

nts c l a im , De fe nda

nts would ha

ve to c onvinc e anothe r distric t c ourt to rule substa

ntive ly on the sta

t ute of lim ita

tions que stion in se

pa rate litiga tion be c a use the distric t c ourt de c line d to a ddre ss it he re . In othe r c a se s whe re c ontinue d litiga

tion re m a ine d possible , C a lifornia c ourts ha ve de t e rm i ne d tha

t dism issa ls without pre

j udic e m e ant ne ithe r litiga nt wa s a “ pre va iling pa

rty .” Se e Varne y , 61 C a l. App. 5th a

t 230–31 (discu ssing Va

rne y Ente rta inm e nt’ s volunta

ry dism issa l of the a c tion a

nd re filing in a

nothe r forum ). B The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in de c i ding tha t this is not an “ e xc e ptiona l c a se ” unde r the La nha m Ac t. Distric t c ourts “ s hould e x am ine the 10‘ t ota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s’ to de te rm ine if the c a se wa s e xc e ptiona l” using a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e sta nda rd. SunEarth , 839 F.3d a t 1181 (c ita

tion om i tte d). He re , the distric t c o urt ne ithe r a pplie d the wrong rule nor a pplie d the c orre c t rule in a

m anne r tha

t wa s (1) illogic a l , (2) im

pla usible , or (3) without support in infere nc e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in there c ord. Unite d State s v . Sle ugh , 896 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th C i r. 2018). Although the distric t c ourt did not quote the “ tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s” sta nda rd e xplic itly , it c i t e d a

nothe r de c ision a

pply ing thec orre c t te st. M o re ove r, its de nia l of a

ttorne y s’ fe e s re ste d on thea bse n c e of e vide nc e tha

t the a c tion wa s frivolous or unre a sona

ble

— not on a rule of c o nstruc t ion, se e C oote r & Ge ll v . Hartmarx C orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 402 (1990) (a pproving re ve rsa l for a

buse of disc re tion if “ a

distric t c ourt’ s findings re s t on a n e rrone ous vie wof the la w” (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d))— and c onside re d e xplic itly a lm ost a ll of the non-e x c l usive fa c t ors this C ourt liste d in SunEarth , s e e 839 F.3d a t 1181. The distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t this is “ a run-of-the -m ill dispute

ove r the suffic i e nc y

of De fe nda

nts’ c onta c ts with [C a lifornia ] ” is not illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in the

re c ord. Se e Sle ugh , 896 F.3d a t 1012. Ye a g e r’ s pa st c onduc t a nd ge ne ra l litigiousne ss do not a utom at ic a lly

m e an tha t this suit a

ga inst

11the s e De fe nda nts wa s unre a sona

ble . Ac c o rdingly , we ne e d not re a c h whe the r De fe nda nts we re pre va iling pa

rtie s. V W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of Ye a ge r’ s c la im s a ga inst Airbus S.E., Airbus He l ic opte rs, Inc ., a nd Airbus De fe nse and Spa c e , Inc . Ye a ge r ha s a ba ndone d a ny argum e nt to thec ontra

ry by fa iling to disc

uss the se e ntitie s in his a ppe lla te brie fing a

nd, inste a d, only

disputing the

dism issa l of his c l a im s a ga inst Airbus S.A.S. Se e Gre e nw o od v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C i r. 1994) (“ W e re vie w only

issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c i fic a lly

and distinc tly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f.” ). For the sa m e re a son, we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the c ontra c t c la im s. For c ontra c t-re late d c la im s, the Ninth C irc uit a sks if “ a de fe nda nt ha s purpose fully

ava ile d him se lf of the privile ge of c onduc ting a c tivitie s within the forum sta te .” Se e Pic ot , 780 F.3d a t 1212 (c ita

tion omi tte d). The distric t c ourt a lso de te rm ine d that Ye a ge r fa ile d to a lle g e purpose ful a va ilm e nt. B e c a

u se Ye a ge r’ s brie fing doe s not discuss purpose ful a va ilm e nt, he ha s a

ba ndone d a ny c ontra ry argum e nt on a

ppe a l. Se e Gre e nw ood, 28 F.3d a t 977.

12VI

Give n our re solution of the issue s, we ne e d

not— a nd do not—

re a c h a ny othe r issue urge d by

the pa rtie s on a p pe a l. W e grant Ye a ge r’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e . Ea c h pa

rtie s sha ll be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

13