High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUECase No. 11-cv-00167 SI
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728STEWART KELLAR, State Bar #267747E-
ttorney at Law™
148 Townsend St., Suite 2San Francisco, CA 94107Telephone: (415) 742-2303Email: stewart@etrny.comAttorney for DefendantGEORGE HOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENTAMERICA LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company,Plaintiff,v.GEORGE HOTZ; HECTOR MARTINCANTERO; SVEN PETER; and DOES 1through 100,Defendants.
CASE No.: CV 11-00167 SIMOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OFPERSONAL JURISDICTION ANDIMPROPER VENUEFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)-(3)
Date: March 11, 2011Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 10, 19th FloorJudge: Hon. Susan Illston
Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document57 Filed02/02/11 Page1 of 24
2MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUECase No. 11-cv-00167 SI
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Contents
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5
II.
MR. HOTZ IS NOT SUBJECT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION INCALIFORNIA. ................................................................................................................................ 6
A.
Because SCEA Does Not Make the Playstation Computer, Mr. Hotz has notPurposefully Directed His Activities at the Forum and is not Subject to Specific Jurisdictionin California. ................................................................................................................................ 7
B.
Prong 1 Of The Personal Jurisdictional Analysis Must Fail Because Mr. Hotz's AllegedActs Were Not Directed Toward California, And SCEA Has Failed To Satisfy Its Burden. ..... 8
1.
Purposeful Direction Analysis: Mr. Hotz‟s Activities Relate to a Passive Website
and Statements Not Directed Toward SCEA or California. .................................................... 9
a.
Mr. Hotz‟s
Maintains a Passive Website ........................................................... 10
b.
Mr. Hotz‟s Alleged Statement and Actions Not Directed at SCEA
.................. 12
2.
Purposeful Availment analysis: Mr. Hotz is not subject to the PSN. ......................... 15
C.
Prong 2 Of The Personal Jurisdiction Analysis Must Fail Because Mr. Hotz Has NoMeaningful Contact With California And His Alleged Acts Do Not Arise From Contact WithCalifornia. .................................................................................................................................. 17
D.
Prong 3 Must Fail Because Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Hotz IsUnreasonable. ............................................................................................................................ 18
1.
The Extent
of Defendant‟s Purposeful Injection Into the Forum State‟s Affairs
....... 18
2.
Burden of Mr. Hotz on Defending In This Forum ..................................................... 19
3.
Extent of Conflict with Sovereignty of Mr. Hotz‟s State
........................................... 20
4.
Forum State‟s Interest in Adjudi
cating the Dispute ................................................... 20
5.
The Most Efficient Judicial Resolution of the Controversy ....................................... 21
6.
Importance of the Forum to the Plaintiff‟s Interest in Convenient and Effective
Relief 21
7.
The Existence of an Alternative Forum ...................................................................... 22
III.
VENUE IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESENT ACTION .............................................. 22
IV.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 24
Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document57 Filed02/02/11 Page2 of 24
3MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUECase No. 11-cv-00167 SI
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Cases
3DO Co. v. Poptop Software, Inc.
, 1998 U.S. dist. LEXIS 21281 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .................... 14
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court
, 480 U.S. 102 (1992) .................................................. 14
Autodesk v. RK Mace Engineering, Inc
., 2004 WL 603382 ......................................................... 15
Badwi v. Hedgpeth
, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4092 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................ 23
Ballard v. Savage
, 65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 8, 17
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................... 10, 14
Brass v. County of Los Angeles
, 328 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir., 2003) .................................................. 23
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewich
, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ................................................................ 18
Calder v. Jones
, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ............................................................................................. 7
Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB
, 11 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1993) ........... 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
Cranford v. Ayers
, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136269 (N.D. Cal., 2010) ......................................... 23
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.
, 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................... 10, 11, 14
Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech Assocs, Inc.
, 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977) ...................... 7
Dole Food Co, Inc. v. Watts
, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................ 7, 8, 14
Gillespie v. Civiletti
, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980) ....................................................................... 23
Insurance Co. of North America v. Marina Salina Cruz
, 649 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir. 1981) ............ 19
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
, 326 US 310 (1945) ............................................................ 6
Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court
, 72 Cal.App.4th 1045 (1999) ................... 11
John Doe v. Unocal Corp.
, 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 8, 17
Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner & Hausser GmbH
, 354 F3d 857 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................ 7
Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen
, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................... 13, 18
Pavlovich v. Superior Court
, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (2002).............................................................. 11, 20
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy
, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................. 10, 14, 18
Roth v. Garcia Marquez
, 942 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................ 21
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
, 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) .................... 7, 8, 9
Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc.
, 854 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1988) ......................................... 19, 21
Slepian v. Guerin,
172 F.3d 58 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 7
Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document57 Filed02/02/11 Page3 of 24
Add a Comment