Elec. Frontier Found. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty Ltd., 290 F. Supp. 3d 923

Background

EFF (a California nonprofit) published an article criticizing GEMSA's patents; GEMSA sued in the Supreme Court of South Australia and obtained an injunction ordering EFF to remove and refrain from publishing the material.
GEMSA served EFF with documents related to the Australian injunction (email and mailed copies) and threatened enforcement in California, including demands for payment and deindexing.
EFF filed a federal declaratory action in N.D. Cal. under the SPEECH Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a declaration that the Australian injunction is unenforceable in the U.S.; GEMSA did not defend in this action.
The magistrate judge recommended denying jurisdiction; the district court reviewed and concluded it has subject-matter jurisdiction, specific personal jurisdiction over GEMSA, and considered EFF’s motion for default judgment.
The court applied the Calder/Walden “effects” (purposeful-direction) test for specific jurisdiction and the Eitel factors for default judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over GEMSA	GEMSA purposefully directed conduct at California: emailed and mailed demand letters, served injunction on EFF in California, obtained an Australian injunction requiring acts to be performed in California, and threatened enforcement here.	(As argued in R&R) Contacts were too attenuated and centered on the plaintiff; conduct occurred abroad so Walden precludes jurisdiction.	Court found Calder/Walden satisfied: GEMSA intentionally acted, expressly aimed at California, and caused foreseeable harm in California; specific jurisdiction exists.
Applicability of Walden v. Fiore to the effects test	Walden does not bar considering defendant’s contacts with the forum when the foreign order and threatened enforcement are substantially tethered to the forum.	Walden requires more than plaintiff-centric contacts; defendant’s conduct all occurred outside forum.	Court held Walden relevant but distinguishable — here the injunction and threats were specifically aimed at EFF in California, so Walden does not defeat jurisdiction.
Whether the Australian injunction is unenforceable under the SPEECH Act	The injunction qualifies as a foreign defamation judgment and (1) the Australian law/order is less protective than U.S./California law (prior restraint, no anti‑SLAPP protections); (2) EFF would not be liable under U.S./California defamation law (opinion, hyperbole, lack of falsity/special damages); (3) Australian court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service.	GEMSA argued (in foreign proceedings) harm from EFF’s statements; in this U.S. action GEMSA did not appear to contest the SPEECH Act analysis.	Court concluded the SPEECH Act bars recognition/enforcement: the injunction is a prior restraint and inconsistent with U.S./California protections; the alleged statements are nonactionable or unsupported; and service/jurisdiction in Australia was defective.
Whether default judgment should be entered	EFF sought declaratory relief; argued irreparable First Amendment harm, likelihood of success under SPEECH Act, sufficiency of complaint, and no prejudice to defendant from default.	GEMSA failed to respond or show excusable neglect; it is actively litigating other matters in the district but did not defend this case.	Applying Eitel factors, the court found all factors favor default judgment and granted declaratory relief that the Australian injunction is unenforceable in the U.S.

Key Cases Cited

Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal courts apply state long-arm statutes and federal due process for personal jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; California long‑arm extends to federal due process)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for purposeful direction in tort cases)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (plaintiff cannot be the only link between defendant and forum; focus on defendant’s forum contacts)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (specific jurisdiction prongs articulated)
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (foreign court orders requiring acts in California can satisfy Calder effects test)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden shift and effects test elements)
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors governing default judgment)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness and fair play considerations for jurisdiction)
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints are the most serious infringement on First Amendment rights)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (distinguishing opinion/hyperbole from actionable defamation)