Fiore v. Walden (2011)

After determining that the delay in returning the funds to respondents caused them "foreseeable harm" in Nevada and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over petitioner was otherwise reasonable, the court found the District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction to be proper. 4 Id., at 582, 585 .

Analysis of this three-prong test leads to the conclusion that CEFCU is subject to personal jurisdiction in California regarding SDCCU’s non-infringement claims. 13 First, CEFCU purposefully directed its activity toward California by using its trademarks there and by operating several branches in the Bay Area. 14 CEFCU further directed its activity toward California when it filed its cancellation petition with the TTAB and alleged that the registration for SDCCU’s trademark …

Analysis of this three-prong test leads to the conclusion that CEFCU is subject to personal jurisdiction in California regarding SDCCU’s non-infringement claims. 13 First, CEFCU purposefully directed its activity toward California by using its trademarks there and by operating several branches in the Bay Area. 14 CEFCU further directed its activity toward California when it filed its cancellation petition with the TTAB and alleged that the registration for SDCCU’s trademark …

Analysis of this three-prong test leads to the conclusion that CEFCU is subject to personal jurisdiction in California regarding SDCCU’s non-infringement claims. 12 First, CEFCU purposefully directed its activity toward California by using its trademarks there and by operating several branches in the Bay Area. 13 CEFCU further directed 12 Where—as here—“a plaintiff relies on specific jurisdiction, he must establish that jurisdiction is proper for ‘each claim asserted against…

We agree with Judge McKeown’s statement in her dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that for Nevada constitutionally to exercise jurisdiction over Walden, he would need to be a “ ‘primary participante ] in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at’ ” Nevada. 688 F.3d 558, 569 (9th Cir.2012) (McKeown, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (quoting Calder, 465 U.S. at 790 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 ).

Fiore, 688 F.3d at 575 (“We will draw reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of the plaintiff where personal jurisdiction is at stake, and will assume credibility.”), rev’d on other grounds, 571 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115 , 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014); Metro.

Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 582-83 (9th Cir.2012).

Courts will “draw reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of the plaintiff where personal jurisdiction is at stake, and will assume credibility.” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).

Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2012), rev’d, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) 11 (relying on Bancroft, 223 F.3d 1082 and Metropolitan Life, 912 F.2d 1062 ). 12 The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between 13 the defendant and the forum.

Initially, Walden rejected the notion that merely engaging in conduct “with knowledge that it would affect persons with a ‘significant connection’ to” the forum indicates that the defendant “expressly aimed” his actions at the forum. 571 U.S. at 282 (quoting Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2014)).

In Fiore v. Walden, the Ninth Circuit held that because all of the economic injuries suffered by plaintiffs were realized in Nevada, including their loss of use and interest on seized funds, a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Nevada. 688 F.3d 558, 588 (9th Cir. 2012).3 Here, Plaintiffs assert that that Rodgers was damaged by the defamatory statements and suffered economic injuries.4 Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 113–123.

First, plaintiffs 25 must meet the plausibility pleading standard laid out in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 26 which the Ninth Circuit has adopted for “personal jurisdiction questions,” Fiore v. Walden, 27 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2012), rev’d on other grounds, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).

Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We 2 will draw reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of the plaintiff where personal 3 jurisdiction is at stake, and will assume credibility.”). 4 B.

Conflicts between statements in parties’ affidavits 18 must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, id., and courts “draw reasonable inferences from 19 the complaint in favor of the plaintiff.” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 20 2012), rev’d on other grounds, 571 U.S. 277 (2014).

Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977)). * Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruled on factual grounds unrelated to the standard of review by Fiore v. Walden, 568 U.S. 1211 (2013)). > Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Fiore, 688 F.3d at 574-75 . ° See Sause v. Bauer, 138 S. Ct. 2561, 2563 (2018). 7 See McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634 , 640 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing…

However, pro se litigants in routine “civil case[s] should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record”.'* The Court is not obliged to fill the role of Plaintiff's counsel, nor is it under any “duty to provide personal instruction or to perform any legal ‘chores’ for the [Plaintiff].”° In this case, Plaintiff has been accorded multiple opportunities to plead his Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruled on factual grounds unrelated…

Co., 704 F.3d at 675 (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted); Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 577 (9th Cir. 2012) (“In general, where there 17 was ‘individual targeting’ of forum residents—actions taken outside the forum state for 18 the purpose of affecting a particular forum resident or a person with strong forum 19 connections—we have held the express aiming requirement satisfied.”).

Co., 704 F.3d at 675 (internal 8 quotation marks and citations omitted); Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 577 (9th Cir. 9 2012) (“In general, where there was ‘individual targeting’ of forum residents—actions 10 taken outside the forum state for the purpose of affecting a particular forum resident or a 11 person with strong forum connections—we have held the express aiming requirement 12 satisfied.”).

These asserted contacts, taken together, are sufficient for the Court to reasonably infer that Slide Fire's contacts with Nevada constitute purposeful availment. 1 See Fiore v. Walden , 688 F.3d 558 , 575 (9th Cir. 2012) ("We will draw reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of the plaintiff where personal jurisdiction is at stake, and will assume credibility."), rev'd on other grounds , Walden v. Fiore , 571 U.S. 277 , 134 S.Ct. 1115 , 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014).

It reasoned that the petitioner had “ ‘expressly aimed’ his submission of the allegedly false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would affect persons with a ‘significant connection’ to Nevada.” Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1120 (quoting Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2011)).

It reasoned that the petitioner had “ ‘expressly aimed’ his submission of the allegedly false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would affect persons with a ‘significant connection’ to Nevada.” Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1120 (quoting Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2011)).

It reasoned that the petitioner had " 'expressly aimed' his submission of the allegedly false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would affect persons with a 'significant - 29 - connection' to Nevada." Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1120 (quoting Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 577-578 (9th Cir.2012).

Id. at 1120 (citing Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 577 (9th Cir.2012)).

Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 573 (9th Cir.2012).

While it is true that “[i]n a tort action, the locus of the injury [is] a relevant factor” in making a venue determination, Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 587 (9th Cir.2012); see also Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.2001), Plaintiff provides no support for the proposition that the relevant injury resulting from false imprisonment may continue indefinitely into the future.

“The- facts underlying a particular claim need-not exactly track the facts underlying the claims for which there is personal' jurisdiction, so long as the core facts are the same.” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 586 (9th Cir.2012)(citing CE Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.2004)). 2.

“The due process analysis, in turn, centers on whether [a nonresident defendant] has ‘certain minimum contacts’ with [the forum state], such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 573 (9th Cir.2012) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)).

The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed its interpretation of the “express aiming” prong of the Colder test, holding that “the express aiming requirement is not satisfied where it is merely foreseeable that there will be an impact on individuals in the forum.” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 577 (9th Cir.2011).

See Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558 , 576-582 (C.A.9 2012).

See Walden, 571 U.S.at 278 9 (reversing Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2012)).

At the same time, however, a plaintiffs pleadings must still “have established with reasonable particularity those specific facts that support jurisdiction.” Palnik v. Westlake Entm’t, Inc., 344 Fed.Appx. 249, 251 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted); see also Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir.2012) (holding, in line with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), that a court should draw only reasonable inferences from a pla…