DFSB Kollective Co. v. Bourne
897 F. Supp. 2d 871
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are Korean rights-holders alleging copyright infringements by Australian resident Bourne via his bww2.com websites and related accounts.
- Plaintiffs seek a default judgment; the court previously tentatively denied for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed briefing.
- Bourne allegedly provided links to infringing content and monetized traffic through advertisers on his sites and accounts.
- Crucially, plaintiffs fail to show California-specific targeting or a substantial California user base tied to Bourne’s activities.
- The court analyzes whether Bourne deliberately targeted California under Calder’s express-aiming test and related minimum-contacts standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Bourne. | Plaintiffs contend Bourne expressly aimed at California via interactive websites. | Bourne contends there are insufficient California-directed contacts to satisfy Calder. | No personal jurisdiction; Calder not satisfied. |
| Whether service of process was valid under Rule 4(f)(1) and Hague Convention. | Service via substituted service on Bourne’s father was proper and timely. | Service defects not argued; Bourne had notice and defended. | Service valid; jurisdictional analysis proceeds. |
| Whether Bourne’s websites and activity meet the Calder purposeful-direction test. | Interactive, commercial sites plus California-based social accounts target Californians. | Website interactivity alone is insufficient without explicit targeting of California. | Not satisfied; no express aiming at California shown. |
| Whether the California forum is reasonably related and the exercise of jurisdiction is fair. | Harm and market impact extend to California via Apple iTunes and California users. | Harm to California market is speculative and does not establish jurisdiction. | Remains unresolved since prongs 1 and 2 not satisfied; court need not reach reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (expressly aimed at forum requires exploitation of forum market)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (three-prong Calder test for purposeful direction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (minimum contacts require purposefulness, relatedness, and reasonableness)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (minimum contacts framework for nonresident defendants)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (three-part minimum contacts test and purposeful direction framework)
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (website interactivity and targeted contacts considerations)
- Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (necessity of proper service to create jurisdiction)