Global Comm. Trading Grp. v. Beneficio De Arroz Choloma, Sa, 972 F.3d 1101

Background

Global, a California trader, sold over $50 million in U.S. agricultural commodities to Honduran importer Bachosa from 2008–2012; shipments were CIF and often inspected/certified in California.
Two 2011–2012 shipments (rice and corn) were held at Puerto Cortes because Honduran import permits were invalid; the MV UBC Sacramento accrued ≈$644,000 demurrage.
Global and Bachosa executed a memorandum acknowledging debt, a promissory note, and a guaranty allegedly signed by Bachosa officers Sady Farid Andonie Reyes and Joyce Mary Jarufe Dox; Jarufe denies signing the guaranty.
Bachosa defaulted in 2014; Global sued Bachosa and the two officers in California state court; defendants removed and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the forum non conveniens motion as moot; the Ninth Circuit reversed as to personal jurisdiction, held jurisdiction over the officers as well, and remanded with instructions to deny forum non conveniens.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Bachosa	Bachosa purposefully availed itself of California via years-long, multi-million-dollar contracts, inspections/certificates in CA, payments to CA, officers’ visits, and the memorandum/note tying obligations to CA	Contacts were negotiated remotely; absence of physical presence in CA; the memorandum/note/guaranty are secondary and shouldn’t create PJ	PJ exists: ongoing course of dealing, forum-related performance/contacts, and foreseeable litigation in CA satisfied specific jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction over Andonie and Jarufe (individual officers)	Officers personally negotiated in CA, made representations in CA about import permits, traveled there repeatedly, and signed (or purportedly signed) a guaranty assuming personal liability	Officers argue only acted as corporate agents; trips were tourism; insufficient individual forum contacts	PJ exists: officers’ in-forum acts on behalf of Bachosa, assurances in CA, and personal guaranty support exercising specific jurisdiction over them
Forum non conveniens (dismissal in favor of Honduras)	Defendants: Honduras is adequate alternative forum; witnesses and documentary evidence (import permits, demurrage) are more accessible there; Honduran law should govern	Global: CA is home forum entitled to deference; many key documents/witnesses in CA; safety concerns for travel to Honduras; California law likely applies to core disputes	Denial of dismissal: balance of private/public factors does not clearly favor Honduras; plaintiff’s home forum given deference; remand with instruction to deny forum non conveniens

Key Cases Cited

Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) (prima facie showing standard for PJ on written materials)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-prong specific-jurisdiction test; purposeful availment/direction analysis)
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process test)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (evaluate entire course of dealing and foreseeability in contract cases)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction principles)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (employees’ status does not shield from PJ when their acts give rise to forum contacts)
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (forum-related contacts and foreseeability)
Davis v. Metro Prods., Inc., 885 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1989) (officers’ corporate acts can supply basis for PJ over individuals)
Forsythe v. Overmyer, 576 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1978) (personal guaranty can subject corporate officer to PJ)
Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (forum non conveniens standards and appellate discretion)