Bralich v. Sullivan
1:17-cv-00547
| D. Haw. | Apr 23, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Philip Bralich sues multiple defendants, alleging theft, conspiracy, conversion, misappropriation, fraud, and RICO claims arising from alleged misappropriation of software (Ergo).
- Stanford University and Nuance Communications were named based on a third‑party document (Exhibit L) that does not expressly identify them; allegations against each are minimal and largely speculative.
- Both Stanford and Nuance moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state RICO, fraud, and conspiracy claims; Nuance also challenged patent-related standing (previously dismissed).
- The Court treated plaintiff’s filings liberally (pro se) but applied Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and Ninth Circuit jurisdictional rules for prima facie showings.
- The Court held a hearing, analyzed consent, general and specific jurisdiction doctrines, and concluded plaintiff failed to make the necessary jurisdictional and substantive showings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction — consent | Plaintiff suggested corporate registration, agent designation, or written consents could imply consent to jurisdiction in Hawaii | Stanford/Nuance argued no statutory consent and timely preservation of jurisdictional defenses | Court: No consent shown; registration/agent alone insufficient; plaintiff’s speculation inadequate; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (with prejudice) unless discovery later shows basis |
| General jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserted continuous/systematic contacts (recruiting, research, marketing, web presence) | Defendants: contacts insufficient to approximate physical presence in Hawaii | Court: Exacting Daimler standard not met; alleged contacts too generic; no general jurisdiction |
| Specific jurisdiction (Zippo/stream‑of‑commerce/purposeful direction) | Plaintiff relied on internet/business activities, marketing, and stream‑of‑commerce theories to show purposeful availment or purposeful direction | Defendants: alleged internet/marketing contacts are vague and unrelated to claims; mere placement into stream of commerce insufficient | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead facts satisfying Zippo or purposeful‑direction tests; no nexus between forum contacts and claims; no specific jurisdiction |
| Merits — RICO, fraud, conspiracy | Plaintiff alleges Stanford and Nuance were named participants in schemes and thus liable under RICO, fraud, and conspiracy theories | Defendants: plaintiff fails to plead racketeering predicate acts, particularity for fraud, or agreement/cooperation for conspiracy | Court: Even assuming jurisdiction, pleadings lack factual basis; RICO, fraud, and conspiracy claims deficient; court inclined to dismiss those claims without leave to amend absent discovery showing otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard).
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie burden for jurisdictional facts).
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (exacting standard for general jurisdiction).
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness and purposeful availment framework).
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (internet contact analysis for specific jurisdiction; Zippo guidance).
- Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) (stream‑of‑commerce and purposeful availment analysis).
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (limits of stream‑of‑commerce theory).
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (single or occasional forum contacts insufficient for jurisdiction).