Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., 490 F. App'x 86

In 2006 Ecuador granted Cotundo seventeen mining concessions for Pungarayacu oil from ~200,000 acres over 30 years; Cotundo is owned by RSM Production (Texas) and Archidona (Panama); Grynberg is president of RSM.
Grynberg emailed a confidential Pungarayacu report to Ivanhoe’s executives; Ivanhoe discussed a potential joint venture with Cotundo, proposing 20% Ivanhoe participation, which ultimately did not close.
In 2008 Ecuador declared certain concessions expired; later in October 2008 IEE signed a contract to develop Pungarayacu; press reports later claimed large oil estimates allegedly drawn from plaintiffs’ materials.
Plaintiffs allege defendants stole confidential information, made false representations, interfered with business interests, and influenced Ecuador to revoke concessions in favor of defendants.
Plaintiffs filed suit in Colorado federal court (Nov. 20, 2008) asserting fraud, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and RICO claims against Ivanhoe, IELA, IEE, Friedland, Martin, and John Does.
District court denied jurisdictional discovery, denied transfer to California, and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over defendants	Grynberg contends defendants had minimum contacts with Colorado.	Ivanhoe groups lacked sufficient contacts; general jurisdiction over Friedland is inappropriate; specific jurisdiction not satisfied.	No, court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over defendants.
Whether the district court properly denied jurisdictional discovery	Grynberg needed jurisdictional discovery to develop contacts and agency/alter ego links.	Discovery was irrelevant or unnecessary; late in the process and untimely.	Yes, district court did not abuse discretion; denial of jurisdictional discovery affirmed.
Whether transfer to the Eastern District of California was proper	California would be a proper forum with jurisdiction, merits likely, and transfer in the interest of justice.	California courts may not have personal jurisdiction over all defendants; not in the interest of justice to transfer.	No, transfer was not in the interest of justice; district court’s decision affirmed.
Whether reconsideration of denial of jurisdictional discovery was proper	New evidence justified reconsideration to prevent manifest injustice.	New evidence not diligently discovered at the time; reconsideration inappropriate.	No, district court did not abuse its discretion; reconsideration affirmed.

AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2008) (Colorado long-arm extends to due process limits; no separate long-arm analysis)
Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, 511 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2007) (two-step jurisdiction analysis; burden on plaintiff to show minimum contacts)
Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (Calder effects test for purposeful direction; forum focal point and injury location)
Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1079 (5th Cir. 1995) (foreseeability alone insufficient for specific jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (Supreme Court 2011) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and substantial contacts)
Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (exceptional general jurisdiction based on president's activities)