Opinion ID: 613475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness Determination

Text: As Fiore and Gipson have met their burden of satisfying the first two parts of the Schwarzenegger test for establishing personal jurisdiction in Nevada, the burden shifts to Walden to satisfy the third part`present[ing] a compelling case' that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable in Nevada. Menken, 503 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). To determine reasonableness, we balance seven factors: [ (a) ] the extent of the defendants' purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs; [ (b) ] the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; [(c) ] the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; [ (d) ] the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; [ (e) ] the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; [(f) ] the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and [ (g) ] the existence of an alternative forum. Id. at 1058 (quoting CE Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2004)). a. Extent of Purposeful Interjection into Affairs of Forum State Regarding the first factor, Walden argues that because the initial search and seizure occurred in Georgia, his actions did not inject him into the affairs of Nevada. We have recognized that circumstances may exist where the level of purposeful injection into the forum supports a finding of purposeful availment yet still weighs against the reasonableness of jurisdiction. Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1115. But that hypothetical situation does not exist here. When Walden sought out Fiore and Gipson at their boarding gate at the Atlanta airport, he knew that their presence in Georgia was fleeting, and that they were going to Nevada. Without probable cause, he seized all of Fiore and Gipson's money, approximately $97,000, which also was destined for Nevada. Even if Walden did not know at the time he seized the funds that Fiore and Gipson had ongoing, substantial connections to Nevada, he necessarily learned of these connections at some point before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit and referring the case for forfeiture proceedings. As it turned out, the impact of the intentional torts alleged, which involved taking a large sum of money from Fiore and Gipson, would necessarily have their primary impact where the funds were meant to be kept and used, Nevada. As an airport law enforcement officer, Walden was necessarily aware that his actions would often have their principal impact outside of Georgia, as many of the people he investigates are in Atlanta only on their way to somewhere else. [21] In that sense, Walden's job necessitates regularly interjecting himself into affairs of other jurisdictions. By preventing the $97,000 from reaching the intended destination, Nevada, Walden prevented Fiore and Gipson from using their legitimate earnings there, and deprived Nevada banking and the Nevada tax base of the money for a considerable time. In short, although he never stepped foot in Nevada, Walden's `purposeful interjection into [Nevada] was significant.' Ibrahim, 538 F.3d at 1259 (quoting Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 475 (9th Cir.1995)). b. Burden of Defending in the Forum Concerning the second factor, Walden maintains that he would be burdened because he has never resided, visited, owned property, or conducted business in Nevada. Were Walden a local small business person or an airport employee, his argument might well have force. But in fact, Walden was working as a federal law enforcement officer, which is the only reason he could seize the funds or seek to facilitate their forfeiture. When federal employees are sued under Bivens, the government, as a rule, provides for their defense, and, ultimately, indemnifies them. See 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. As Fiore and Gipson pointed out in their brief to this court, Walden appeared in Nevada represented by the world's largest law firm with offices in all fifty states and providing defense free of charge (The Office of the United States Attorney). On appeal, Walden is represented by the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which often appears in this court. Fiore and Gipson, in contrast, had to retain counsel to seek redress for their alleged constitutional injuries. Walden's burden in defending this case is thus small as compared to the likely burden on Fiore and Gipson were the case brought in Georgia. This factor therefore does not weigh in favor of Walden, although it would in all probability weigh in favor of many airport-connected defendants not associated with the federal government. c. Extent of Conflict with Sovereignty of Defendant's State The third factor, the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of Georgia, favors Fiore and Gipson. This is a federal action that will be resolved in federal court. The federal government, not Georgia, was the entity on whose behalf the funds were seized and retained. And as Fiore and Gipson have no connection to Georgia, Georgia has no interest in protecting their interests. Consequently, redress of Walden's tortious conduct that injured Nevada residents in Nevada will not infringe on the sovereignty of [Walden's] home state of[Georgia]. Ibrahim, 538 F.3d at 1259. d. Interest of Forum State in Adjudicating the Dispute Nevada has `a strong interest in providing an effective means of redress for its residents who are tortiously injured.' Id. (quoting Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 475). Fiore and Gipson are Nevada residents; a substantial portion of their $97,000 that Walden seized originated in Nevada; the money was en route to Nevada when seized; the seized money was destined to enter Nevada's economy and tax base; the money eventually was returned to Fiore and Gipson in Las Vegas, Nevada; and Fiore and Gipson have incurred considerable attorneys' fees in Nevada in securing the return of their unlawfully seized, legitimate earnings and in filing this action to redress the financial injuries they suffered in Nevada. For all these reasons, Nevada has a considerable interest in adjudicating this dispute. See id. e. Most Efficient Resolution of the Controversy The fifth factor concerns efficiency of the forum, a consideration that turns primarily on the location of witnesses and evidence. See Menken, 503 F.3d at 1060-61. Fiore and Gipson represent that their witnesses likely will include: three people from San Juan, Puerto Rico; three from Atlanta, Georgia; one from Quantico, Virginia; and at least Fiore and Gipson from Las Vegas, Nevada. If Walden places at issue Fiore's and Gipson's reputations as proficient, practicing gamblers, additional Nevada witnesses likely will be necessary. Fiore and Gipson also emphasize that their documentation was generated in and is located in Nevada. These documents, including voluminous records sent to Walden from Nevada, which evidence that Fiore and Gipson are professional gamblers and that the cash in their possession, unremarkable given their trade, did not provide probable cause for Walden's continued seizure and attempted forfeiture of their funds. Moreover, Fiore and Gipson argue that most of the documentation relevant to Walden's actions is located in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., in the DEA headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, or in Nevada, not in Georgia. In contrast, Walden argues only that the witnesses in Georgia are the most important, that the operative versions of Fiore and Gipson's documents are those received by DEA in Georgia. Overall, this factor is fairly evenly balanced, weighing, if at all, only slightly in favor of Fiore and Gipson. f. Importance of Forum to Plaintiffs' Convenient and Effective Relief The sixth factor, the importance of Nevada to Fiore and Gipson's convenient and effective relief, generally is not given much weight in this circuit. See Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1116 (noting that in this circuit, the plaintiff's convenience is not of paramount importance). It does, however, weigh in Fiore and Gipson's favor. Fiore and Gipson are Nevada residents; the seizure of their gambling proceeds by Walden occurred as they were changing planes in Georgia, a state to which they appear to have had no other connection. All of their financial injury was realized in Nevada, which is also the location of their documentation. Fiore and Gipson also have a continuing relationship with a Nevada law firm. For all these reasons, Nevada is a convenient and effective forum for them. g. Existence of an Alternative Forum For the reasons given in evaluating the preceding six factors, although Georgia is an available forum in the sense that the suit against Walden could have been brought there, Georgia is not a preferable alternative to Nevada. In addition, at this preliminary stage of proceedings, the parties have not had the benefit of discovery to identify the other DEA employee who made relevant decisions regarding the false affidavit and attempt to instigate forfeiture proceedings while retaining the seized funds. According to the complaint, that individual operated from Virginia. As to him or her, Georgia might not be an available forum, but Nevada would be, for the same reason it is a proper forum for suit against Walden.
Taken as a whole, the seven-factor reasonableness analysis disfavors Georgia as a forum, and, overall, mildly favors Nevada. Walden has not come close to making a compelling case that exercise of jurisdiction over him in Nevada would be unreasonable. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.