639 F.Supp.3d 1065
S.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiff Harry Crouch sued Ruby Corp. and Ruby Life (operators of AshleyMadison.com), alleging the site charges men but not women to initiate and respond to messages, violating California laws banning sex/gender/sexual-orientation discrimination and gender-based price discrimination.
- Defendants are Canadian corporations (formerly Avid Life Media / Avid Dating Life); Plaintiff sued on behalf of a putative class under the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.5, and § 51.6 (Gender Tax Repeal Act).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to strike class allegations; Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of prior related California filings and Ontario corporate records.
- The Court judicially noticed the prior filings and Ontario government pages but not the truth of allegations in other complaints; parties agreed the entities were predecessors.
- The Court found no general jurisdiction (Defendants incorporated and principally based in Ontario; contacts with California not sufficiently continuous/systematic) and no specific jurisdiction (plaintiff failed to show Defendants expressly aimed their conduct at California), and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction with leave to amend.
- Because dismissal was granted, the Court denied the motion to strike class allegations as moot (without prejudice to reassertion if plaintiff amends).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Defendants and predecessors repeatedly litigated in California and have substantial California user base; amalgamation makes Ruby/Ruby Life liable for predecessors’ contacts. | Defendants are Ontario corporations with principal place of business in Canada and lack continuous/systematic contacts in California (no offices, servers in Canada, no registration). | No general jurisdiction — contacts insufficient to render Defendants "at home" in California; dismissal granted. |
| Specific personal jurisdiction (purposeful direction) | Defendants operate an interactive, commercial website that caused foreseeable harm in California; predecessors faced similar suits here. | Website availability alone is insufficient; plaintiff failed to show Defendants expressly aimed their conduct at California or targeted Californians during the relevant period. | No specific jurisdiction — Calder "express aiming" not shown; dismissal granted. |
| Judicial notice of prior filings and government records | Requests to judicially notice prior complaints, filings, and Ontario ministry pages to show predecessors’ California litigation and name changes. | Opposed to taking the truth of allegations in other complaints; challenged accuracy of government page inferences. | Court took judicial notice of the existence of prior filings and the Ontario records, but not the truth of allegations in those filings; accepted name-change evidence. |
| Motion to strike class allegations | Plaintiff opposed strike; sought leave to amend or jurisdictional discovery if dismissal granted. | Defendants sought to strike class allegations early under Rule 12(f). | Motion to strike denied as moot given dismissal; plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery denied without prejudice (no specifics provided). |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (general-jurisdiction "at home" standard for corporations)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (minimum contacts / due process framework)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Sup. Ct. 1984) ("effects" test for purposeful direction)
- Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing general vs. specific jurisdiction tests)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (website interactivity and "something more" for express aiming)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (general-jurisdiction contacts analysis)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (sliding-scale test for website contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (reasonableness inquiry when specific jurisdiction prima facie shown)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (effects-based purposeful-direction analysis)