Ama Multimedia, LLC v. Marcin Wanat
970 F.3d 1201
9th Cir.2020Background
- AMA Multimedia (Nevada) owns copyrighted and trademarked adult videos distributed online; discovered many AMA videos on ePorner.com and sued for copyright, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
- ePorner is operated by MW Media (Poland); Marcin Wanat (Polish resident) is a partner who registered two proxy domains via GoDaddy’s Polish site and contracted with U.S.-based DNS Tiggee; ePorner stored content on a Netherlands server and used third-party, geo-targeted advertising; ~19.21% of traffic came from the U.S.
- AMA learned Wanat’s identity via early discovery, amended the complaint to name him, and sought jurisdictional discovery to probe U.S. contacts and advertising agreements.
- A Special Master (and district court adopting its report) denied production of certain personal-data discovery because of Poland’s PDP and the CJEU Schrems decision (which limited transfers to the U.S. under Safe Harbor); the Privacy Shield Decision and later the GDPR were not raised to the district court by AMA.
- The district court dismissed Wanat for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2); the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding AMA failed to show Wanat purposefully directed activities at the United States and that the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2): whether Wanat purposefully directed tortious conduct at the U.S. (Calder effects test) | Wanat expressly aimed ePorner at the U.S.: significant U.S. traffic (19.21%), geo-targeted ads, U.S. Terms of Service, and use of U.S. DNS show targeting and commercial exploitation of U.S. market | Wanat’s contacts with the U.S. are limited, indirect, or third-party-driven; site is global, ads are geo-located by third parties, and he did not purposefully target the U.S. | Affirmed dismissal: AMA failed to make a prima facie showing that Wanat expressly aimed conduct at the U.S.; minimum-contacts lacking. |
| Jurisdictional discovery: whether the district court abused discretion in denying discovery of personal data | Discovery was necessary to show Wanat’s U.S. contacts (advertising deals, contracts) | Producing certain personal data would violate Polish PDP and risk criminal liability; Special Master correctly limited discovery | No abuse of discretion: district court reasonably relied on Special Master and PDP/Schrems analysis; AMA did not raise Privacy Shield below. |
| Consideration of Privacy Shield and GDPR when raised first on appeal | Privacy Shield/GDPR materially change availability of European personal data to U.S. parties and support remand for discovery | Issues were not raised below; factual predicate (self-certification) is missing; raising them on appeal is untimely and prejudicial | Court declined to consider them for the first time on appeal; not a pure legal question and AMA failed to present evidence of self-certification. |
| Attribution of partnership contacts (secondary issue; raised in concurrence) | MW Media’s contacts with the U.S. may be imputed to Wanat because of Polish partnership structure and joint liability | Generally, partners’ contacts are not automatically imputed to other partners; must analyze Polish law to determine agency/principal relationship | Left open: concurrence suggests district court on remand may assess whether Polish law creates agency so partnership contacts could be imputed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes "minimum contacts" due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for intentional torts directed at forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (a defendant’s own contacts with the forum are required; plaintiff’s forum contacts alone insufficient)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Calder to websites; a nationally accessible site may give rise to jurisdiction where it "appeals to, and profits from," a forum audience)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (continuously exploiting a forum’s market can support jurisdiction)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test explanation)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie showing standard for personal jurisdiction from written materials)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 4(k)(2) and federal long-arm analysis)
- Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (intentional-act element in effects test)