Am Trust v. Ubs Ag
681 F. App'x 587
9th Cir.2017Background
- AM Trust, a Bahamian trust representing heirs of a deceased Indonesian official, sued Swiss bank UBS in the N.D. Cal. asserting California state-law claims for mishandling accounts with funds located in Switzerland, Singapore, and possibly Indonesia.
- AM Trust sought to establish general personal jurisdiction over UBS in California (i.e., that UBS is "at home" in California for all claims).
- UBS is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Switzerland; it does business in California but is not shown to be essentially "at home" there.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied AM Trust’s request for jurisdictional discovery; AM Trust appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether AM Trust met its burden to show general jurisdiction and whether the court abused its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UBS is subject to general personal jurisdiction in California | UBS has sufficient operations/branches in California to be "at home" there | UBS is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland; California contacts are not so substantial to render it at home | Court: No — Daimler standard controls; UBS not "at home" in California |
| Whether UBS consented to general jurisdiction by registering/appointing agent in California | Registration/agent designation (or prior appearances) can constitute consent to jurisdiction | California law does not require or treat registration/agent designation as consent to general jurisdiction; UBS says it is not registered | Court: No — California law and precedent show designation alone is insufficient; consent not shown |
| Whether UBS’s acceptance of service here amounts to consent to jurisdiction | Acceptance of service indicates submission to jurisdiction | Service and jurisdiction are distinct; tag jurisdiction doesn't apply to corporations | Court: No — acceptance of service does not equal consent to general jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of jurisdictional discovery was an abuse of discretion | Discovery could reveal facts establishing general jurisdiction | Plaintiff failed to show a factual predicate that discovery would likely produce jurisdictional facts | Court: No — plaintiff did not show clear entitlement or that denial caused substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to show jurisdictional facts)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction normally limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (exceptional circumstances may permit general jurisdiction elsewhere)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 377 P.3d 874 (Cal. 2016) (designation of agent/qualification to do business insufficient alone for general jurisdiction)
- Chan v. Soc’y Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing effective service from personal jurisdiction)