Sher v. Johnson (1990)

First, Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that Barber had at least apparent authority to request the credit reports and, as such, should be considered the agent of Bennett regardless of whether authority was actually given. 2 See, e.g., Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (“For purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of an agent are attributable to the principal.”); E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhodia Fiber & Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 197 F.R.D. 112, 122 (D.Del.2000)…

See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479 n. 22, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (“[W]hen commercial activities are carried on in behalf of an out-of-state party those activities may sometimes be ascribed to the party, at least where he is a primary participant in the enterprise and has acted purposefully in directing those activities.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (“For purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of an agent are attributable to the pri…

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

See id. at 1074-80 (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Out-of-state legal representation does not establish purposeful availment . . . where the law firm is solicited in its home state and takes no affirmative action to promote business within the forum state.”).

Thus, a partner’s actions may be imputed to the partnership for the purpose of establishing minimum contacts, but ordinarily may not be imputed to the other partners.”). 6 However, given Resnick’s allegations that Rowe was Friedman and Lenders Depot’s agent and that Rowe’s representations bound Friedman and Lenders Depot, Res-nick satisfies his prima facie burden of demonstrating purposeful availment. 7 See Sher, 911 F.2d at 1362 (“For purposes of personal jurisdiction, the …

Sher, 911 F.2d at 1363 (“We find these contacts too attenuated to create a 11 ‘substantial connection’ with California.”).

Liability 16 depends on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants and between 17 the individual defendants; jurisdiction depends only upon each defendant’s 18 relationship with the forum.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1365 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 “Jurisdiction over a partnership does not necessarily permit a court to assume 20 jurisdiction over the individual partners,” and “California court[s] ‘ha[ve] jurisdiction 21 over only those individual partners who pe…

See also Sher, 911 F.2d at 1365 (“Regardless of their [alleged] 22 joint liability, jurisdiction over each defendant must be established individually.”). 23 For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established specific 24 personal jurisdiction over BANA.

See also Sher, 911 F.2d at 1365 (“Regardless 7 of their [alleged] joint liability, jurisdiction over each defendant must be established 8 individually.”). 9 BBK asserts that its proposed Revised Amended Complaint, discussed above, and 10 the materials it references, demonstrate that Defendants “in fact operate as a single 11 combined entity for all practical purposes.” (Doc. 79 at 5.) It asserts that “[b]ased on the 12 alter ego nature of the relationship between CCA and the…

Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 However, “in the absence of an evidentiary hearing,” a plaintiff “need only make a prima 8 facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990) 9 (citation omitted).

“The plaintiff bears the 21 burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 22 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). 23 “If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these prongs, personal jurisdiction is not established in the 24 forum state.” Id.

Personal Jurisdiction 12 TRPA argues that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over 13 Berkbigler.4 (TRPA Mot. at 17.) In a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, 14 the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that an exercise of jurisdiction is proper. 15 Ziegler v. Indian River Cty., 64 F.3d 470 , 473 (9th Cir. 1995). “[I]n the absence of an 16 evidentiary hearing,” a plaintiff “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional 17 facts.” Sher v. …

Plaintiff 5 has not offered any non-conclusory allegations to support a finding that Semper Capital Partners 6 LLC, RDP I LLC, and RSL Capital LLC were directly involved in the dispute here. 7 As to the individual defendants, the control “liability is not to be conflated with 8 amenability to suit in a particular forum.” AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxells Lambert, 94 F.3d 586 , 9 591 (9th Cir. 1996); Sher, 911 F.2d at 1365-66 (“Liability and jurisdiction are independent.”); see 10 a…

Id. at 1363 (“Out-of-state legal 25 representation does not establish purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in 26 the forum state, where the [firm] is solicited in its home state and takes no affirmative action to 27 promote business within the forum state.”) Rather, it was an additional deed of trust between the 1 In the present case, Haidermota BNR’s actions did not create sufficient contacts with 2 Nevada simply because it allegedly directed its c…

See Siskind v. Villa Found, for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 437-38 (Tex.1982) (“it is the contacts of the defendant himself that are determinative”); cf. Sher, 911 F.2d at 1366 (“a partner’s actions may be imputed to the partnership for the purpose of establishing minimum contacts, but ordinarily may not be imputed to other partners”).

APPLICABLE LAW “Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Picot v. Weston, 780 10 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 11 1990)).

If a “court decides the motion without an evidentiary hearing, . . . then ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts.’” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

The 24 plaintiff “bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test.” Briskin v. Shopify, 25 Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th 26 Cir. 1990)). 27 28 3 In her Response to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff does not assert that Exocel is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Arizona.

If a “court decides the motion without an evidentiary hearing, . . . then ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts.’” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

Sept. 17, 2012) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Although some of [plaintiff]’s claims sound in tort, all arise out of [plaintiff]’s contractual relationship with the defendants.”)); see also HK China Grp., Inc. v. Beijing United Auto. & Motorcycle Mfg.

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

It is presumed that an 15 “otherwise valid exercise of specific jurisdiction is reasonable.” Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1500 ; 16 see also Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1364 (9th Cir. 1990) (once the court has 17 found purposeful availment, it is presumed that personal jurisdiction would be 18 reasonable).

If a "court decides the motion without an evidentiary hearing, . . . then 'the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts.'" Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Specifically, when a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the motion is based on written materials rather than the evidence presented, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Specifically, when a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the motion is based on written materials rather than the evidence presented, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Specifically, when a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the motion is based on written materials rather than the evidence presented, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Discussion 10 A. Standard of Review 11 When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal 12 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that 13 jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 , 14 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). 15 Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction in the complaint where, as 16…

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 A defendant has the burden to show that, despite the first prongs being satisfied, 2 exercising such jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

The first prong of the due process analysis “may be satisfied by purposeful availment, by purposeful direction, or by some combination thereof.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). / / / Turning to the present case, the Ninth Circuit has determined that “[o]ut-of- state legal representation does not establish purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, where the law firm is solicited in its home state and takes no affirmati…

A court may 5 assert specific jurisdiction over a defendant when a case “aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the 6 defendant’s contacts with the forum . . . .” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 7 408, 414 n.8 (1984). 8 “In opposition to a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the 9 plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 10 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Sher …

“The proper question is not where the plaintiff 2 experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him 3 to the forum in a meaningful way.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 290 . “[I]n the absence of an 4 evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional 5 facts.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 a.

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

When the court’s determination “is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.’” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Sher v. Johnson, 24 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (“For 22 purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of an agent are attributable to the principal.”). 23 “A contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts in the plaintiff’s 24 home forum.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) 15 “There are two limitations on a court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction over 16 a nonresident defendant: the applicable state personal jurisdiction rule and constitutional 17 principles of due process.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1990). 18 California’s long-arm jurisdictional statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction so 19 long as it comports with federal due process.

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990).

“Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint 6 for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that 7 jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 , 800 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Even if Heritage Wealth executed a transaction for a loan with a Hawai`i resident, “the mere existence of a contract with a party in the forum state does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction.” Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 , 105 S. Ct. 2175 , 2185 (1985)).

See 18 Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[J]urisdiction over each 19 defendant must be established individually.”) 20 In his Response, Plaintiff asserts for the first time that Defendants Picciano and 21 Faliero are “officer[s]/employee[s]” of Defendant LVNV Funding.

Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., 5 Inc., 485 F.3d 450 , 459 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is well established that, as a general rule, where 6 a parent and a subsidiary are separate and distinct corporate entities, the presence of one 7 . . . in a forum state may not be attributed to the other[.]”); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 , 8 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Liability depends on the relationship between the plaintiff and the 9 defendants and between the individual defendants; jurisdiction…

“A showing that a defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in a forum state typically consists of evidence of the defendant’s actions in the forum, such as executing or performing a contract there.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 ; see also Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Purposeful availment requires that the defendant have performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business…

See, e.g., Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (“For purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of an agent are attributable to the principal.”); E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhodia Fiber, 197 F.R.D. 112, 122 (D.

Id. at 1364 (“Even this action … , 21 when combined with the firm’s underlying representation of a California client, does not 22 constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within 23 California.”).

Id. at 1364 (“Even this action … , 21 when combined with the firm’s underlying representation of a California client, does not 22 constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within 23 California.”).

Workers, 960 F.2d at 1091, quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[W]hile it is generally true that questions of ‘[l]iability and jurisdiction are independent,’ the factors that we must consider for purposes of piercing the veil separating two corporations in the liability context also inform the jurisdictional inquiry.”); Scott, 450 Mass. at 767 (“In Massachusetts, the equitable doctrine of corporate disregard differs in no material respect from the …

See, e.g. , Sher v. Johnson , 911 F.2d 1357 , 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Regardless of their joint liability, jurisdiction over each defendant must be established individually."); Skurkis v. Montelongo , No. 16-cv-0972 YGR, 2016 WL 4719271 , at *4 (N.D.