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

n individual, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ENTUR Y 21 GOLD C OAST REALTY, an unknown fore i gn busine ss e ntity ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55722 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00620-LAB
NLS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 5, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SETTLE, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
APR 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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. ** 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). *** The Honora

ble B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Al Ha tse t, a C a lifornia

re side nt, a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his c om

pla int without pre

judic e for la c k of spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r any of the de fe nda nts na m e d the re in. 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing de fe nda n t John Goldenbe r g for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Ha tse t’ s a lle g at ions a ga inst Golde nbe r g foc us e ntire ly on Golde nbe r g’ s a lle ge d la c k of prope r c ontrol ove r a Nic ara gua

n e s c row a c c ount. The only c onne c tion be twe e n Golde nbe rg and C a lifornia is the fa c t tha

t Hatse t is a C a lifornia re side nt. B ut a s the Supre m e C ourt ha s re c e ntly e xpla ine d, “ the pla intif f
c annot be the only

link be twe e n the de fe nda nt a nd the forum . R athe r , it is the de fe nda n t’ s c onduc t tha

t m ust form the ne c e ssa

ry c onne c tion with the forum S tate that is the ba sis for its jurisdiction ove r him . . . . Due proc e ss re q uire s tha t a de fe nda n t be ha l e d into c ourt in a forum S t ate ba s e d on his ow n affiliationwith the S tate , not ba se d on the ‘ ra ndom , fortuitous, or a

tte nuate d’ c onta c ts he m a k e s by inte ra c ting with othe

r pe rsons a f

filia te d with the S tate .” W

alde n v . Fior e , 134 S. C t. 1 1 15, 1 1 22–23 (2014) (e m pha sis a dde d) (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d).

1 Hatse t doe s not a

rgue tha t a ny of the de fe n da

n t s a re subje c t to ge ne ra l pe rsona l jurisdic tion in C a lifornia . Inste a d , he argue s tha t the de fe nda

nts a re subje c t to spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic tion the re . 22. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing de fe nda nt B arry Olive r for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. Ha tse t’ s a lle gat ions a ga inst Oliver m irror those a ga inst Golde nbe rg, so the ana ly sis of whe the r Olive r is subje c t to spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic tion in C a lifornia

is the sa m e a s tha t of Golde nbe rg. 2 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing de fe nda n t B roc k Frost for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. Frost c om m unic at e d with Ha

tse t while Hatse t wa s phy sic a lly

pre se n t in C a lifornia , but the s e c om m unic at ions c onne c t only

Frost to Hatse t , not to C a lifornia

spe c ific a lly

. As disc usse d a

bove , to justify

pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r a

de fe nda nt, the re lationship m

ust a rise out of c onta c ts tha

t the de fe nda n t him s e lf c re a te s with theforum sta t e . Id. at 1 121–22, 1 1 2 6. “ [T] he pla i ntif f c annot be the only

link be twe e n the de fe nda nt a nd the forum .” Id. at 1 122. Additiona

lly , Hatse t a sse rts a

c a use of a c tion for inte ntiona l
m isre pre se ntation, not the ty p e of re puta

tion-ba se d tort tha

t e sta blishe s a la r ge r

2 Hatse t a

r gue s tha t Olive r ha s c onduc te d a

re a l e s tate se m ina

r in C a lifornia in 2008, a nd this should we igh in fa vor of subje c ting Olive r to pe rsona l jurisdic t ion in C a lifornia
. Eve n if we we re to a ssum e that Olive r’ s c onta c ts with C a lifornia are e nough to prove purpose ful a v a ilm e nt or dire c tion for thefirst prong spe c ific jurisdic tion te st, Ha

tse t’ s c la i m s a ga inst Oliver do not “ arise out of” Olive r’ s c onduc t, the se c ond prong to the spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic tion te st. Pic ot v
. W e ston , 780 F .3d 1206, 121 1 (9th C ir . 2015). Ha tse t doe s not a lle ge , de c la re , or ar gue tha t he ha s e ve r a tte n d e d one of Olive r’ s se m ina rs, or tha t a ny se m ina r de a lt with theNic ara gua

n prope rty

Hatse t thought he bought. Ha t se t’ s c la im s a ga inst Olive r he re re late to Olive r’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to e x e rc ise prope rly his c ontrol ove r a Nic ara gua

n e sc row a c c ount. 3c onne c tion with the forum sta te like tha t in Braine r

d v . Gov e rnors of the Univ e rsity of Albe rta , 873 F .2d 1257 (9th C ir . 1989). 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in dism issing de fe nda n t Gold C oa st R e a lty for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Apa rt from the c onta c ts of Gold C oa st’ s
a ge nts/e m ploy e e s, Ha

tse t argue s tha

t Gold C oa s t purpose fully ava ile d itse lf of the privile ge of doing busine ss in C a lifornia be c a use he a l le ge d tha

t Gold C oa st
m a inta ine d a

n English-la

ngua ge we bsite whic h liste d a “ U.S. Te le phone ” num be r be ginning with a

re a c ode “ 760,” whic h is use d in Sa n Die go C ounty

in C a lifornia
. A pa ssive we b site tha

t doe s littlem ore tha

n m ake inform ation a

va ila ble to those who a

re inte re ste d in it is not e

nough for Ha

tse t to m ak e a

prim a fa c ie c a se that Gold C oa st purpose fully ava ile d itse l f of the privile g e of c onduc ting a c tivitie s within theforum

State , thus invoking the

be ne fits a

nd prote c tions of its la

ws. Se e C y be rse ll, Inc . v . C

y be rse ll, Inc

. , 130 F.3d 414, 419–20 (9th C ir. 1997). Oliver de c la re d tha t the phone num

be r wa s provide d through Sky p e and wa s inte nde d

“ m e re ly to fa c ilita

te c onta c t with pe rsons in the U nite d State

s , ” not a spe c ific sta

te . As Olive r de c la

re d, e i t he r the num

be r wa s ra

ndom ly ge ne ra te d by

Sky pe , or it wa s
c hose n be c a use O l ive r wa s origina l ly

from Enc inita s, C a lifornia , whe re tha t a re a
c ode wa s use d, but tha

t “ Gold C oa st did not c hoose the num be r to [] m a

rke t

4[spe c ific a lly ] to c u s tom e rs in C a lifornia .” H atse t ’ s own de c la ra tion doe s not dispute this. B e c a u se none of Hat se t’ s a l le gations or e vide nc e provide any support for a
c la im tha t the 760 a

re a c ode wa s inte ntionally c hose n to ta

rge t C a lifornia

re side nts, it is a “ random ,” “ fortuitous,”or “ atte nuate d ” c onta c t with theforum sta te tha t is insuffic ie nt to subje c t a

de fe nda nt to pe rsona l jurisdic tion the re . W alde n , 134 S. C t. at 1122. 5. The d istric t c ourt did not e rr in dism issing d e fe nda nt C e ntury 21 C e ntra l Am e ric a for la c k o f pe rsona l jurisdic tion. C e ntury 21 C e ntra l Am e ric a is a m a s te r franc hisor for Gold C oa s t, a nd is “ e nga g e d in the busine ss of le a sing franc hise rights to re a l e s tate profe ssiona ls in C e ntra l Am e ric a , inc luding Nic a ra gua .” Hatse t doe s not e xpla in why , or whe the r, his obse rvation tha t Gold C oa st is a franc hise e of C e n tury

21 C e ntra l Am e ric a is jurisdic tiona l ly signific a n t, a nd
a c c ordingly

ha s fa ile d to sustain his burde n of e sta blishing tha

t the distric t c ourt ha d pe rsona l jurisdic tion ove r C e ntury 21 C e ntra l Am e ric a . Se e Sc hw arze ne gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C

o. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th C ir. 2004); se e also Inde p . Tow e rs of W ash. v . W ashington , 350 F.3d 925, 929–30 (9th C ir. 2003). Hatse t ha s wa ive d a

ny jurisdic tiona l disc ove ry argum e n t be c a use he did not
re que s t jurisdic tiona l disc ove ry be fore the distric t c ourt. “ A s a ge ne ra l rule , we will 5not c onside r ar gum e nts tha t a re ra i se d for the first tim e on a p pe a l.” Smith v

. Marsh , 194 F .3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir . 1999). AFFIRM E D.

6