Fiore v. Walden
688 F.3d 558
9th Cir.2011Background
- Fiore and Gipson carried $97,000 in gambling proceeds; funds seized at Atlanta airport by DEA agent Walden during transit from San Juan to Las Vegas.
- Seizure occurred in Georgia; plaintiffs later provided Nevada-related documentation showing ties to Las Vegas.
- AUSA concluded no probable cause for forfeiture; funds were returned about seven months later.
- Plaintiffs filed a Bivens action in Nevada asserting Fourth Amendment violations; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Panel reversed on personal jurisdiction as to the false-affidavit-forfeiture conduct, suggesting pendent jurisdiction and addressing venue and remand.
- This opinion governs rehearing en banc; it remands for pendent jurisdiction consideration and holds venue proper in Nevada.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walden’s false affidavit/forfeiture acts establish Nevada jurisdiction | Fiore/Gipson: express aiming to Nevada via targeted affidavit | Walden: no Nevada-specific targeting at seizure | Yes; express aiming shown via the false affidavit and Nevada connections |
| Whether pendent personal jurisdiction is appropriate for remaining claims | Fiore/Gipson: pendent jurisdiction appropriate | Walden: should not extend jurisdiction | Remanded to decide pendent jurisdiction analysis |
| Whether Nevada is a proper venue for the action | Fiore/Gipson: Nevada forum proper given harms in Nevada | Walden: venue not proper | Venue proper in the District of Nevada |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (due process; foreseeability alone insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court 1984) (express aiming requirement; forum-focused conduct must exist)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (Schwarzenegger test for specific jurisdiction; purposeful direction)
- Bancroft & Masters v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (express aiming; targeted forum harm can establish jurisdiction)
- Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (express aiming; targeted plaintiff in forum; knowledge of forum connections)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (express aiming; forum-directed conduct required beyond mere foreseeability)
- Calder-effects; Brayton Purcell line, 657 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of express aiming; conflicts with circuit law)