Fiore v. Walden
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18817
9th Cir.2011Background
- Fiore and Gipson, professional gamblers, were in Atlanta for a layover en route to Las Vegas during which $97,000 in cash was seized from their carry-ons and person.
- DEA agents questioned Fiore, explained their funds were gambling proceeds, and later used a drug-detection dog that allegedly signaled contraband leading to seizure.
- Fiore and Gipson provided Nevada and California banking/gambling documentation; they were promised the funds would be returned if sources were proven legitimate.
- The funds were returned only after a Georgia-based prosecutor determined lack of probable cause; Fiore and Gipson filed a Bivens action in Nevada against Walden and others.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for jurisdictional analysis and potential pendent personal jurisdiction; venue was challenged.
- This opinion addresses personal jurisdiction, pendent jurisdiction, and venue related to Walden’s actions at the Atlanta airport and subsequent forfeiture proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Walden have specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada? | Fiore and Gipson assert Walden purposefully directed acts toward Nevada. | Walden contends actions were directed at Georgia and there is no Nevada nexus. | Yes, Walden has Nevada jurisdiction for the false affidavit/forfeiture conduct. |
| Was Nevada a proper venue for Fiore and Gipson’s suit? | Fiore and Gipson suffered injuries in Nevada; substantial events occurred there. | Venue should be Georgia where seizure occurred. | Venue is proper in the District of Nevada. |
| Can the district court exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over related claims? | Under Action Embroidery, pendent jurisdiction is appropriate for related claims arising from the same conduct. | Only the Walden seizure claim is pled; no independent basis for jurisdiction for others. | Remand to decide whether to retain or dismiss pendent claims. |
| Should the district court consider the seizure claim and related conduct as a single jurisdictional product? | Core facts stem from the same incident; jurisdiction extends to related aspects. | Better to limit to the explicit claims; ancillary issues do not establish jurisdiction. | Yes, pendent jurisdiction applies to related claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional act expressly aimed at the forum causing foreseeable harm)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (Schwarzenegger test for specific jurisdiction; seven-factor reasonableness)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (express aiming when targeted at forum plaintiff with strong ties)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1990) (fraud-based jurisdictional targeting; forum connections)
- Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (Calder-effects framework; forum-related harm)
- Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (Calder-effects express aiming and targeting analysis)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (express aiming; targeted forum impact)
- Ibrahim v. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2008) (intentional impact in forum based on defendant's knowledge of plaintiff’s ties)
- Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2004) (pursuant to pendent personal jurisdiction)
- CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004) (relevance of nucleus of operative facts for pendent jurisdiction)