Ishiyama v. Glines
2:16-cv-00222
D. Nev.Oct 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Akira Ishiyama sues defendants Samuel Glines and Jerrold Krystoff for refusal to honor guarantees of a loan made to Nexicon, Inc.
- Glines moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue; the court previously found no personal jurisdiction over Glines in Nevada.
- The parties were asked to brief which California federal district was proper for transfer.
- Ishiyama says he met Glines (and once Krystoff) at Nexicon’s Malibu, California office, that Glines worked there, and that the guaranty documents were likely executed in California.
- Glines admits working in California for Nexicon and traveling there but resides in Missouri and asserts (without authority) that California courts lack specific jurisdiction over him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a California district is a proper forum for transfer given lack of Nevada jurisdiction | Meetings and execution of guarantees occurred in Nexicon’s Malibu office; defendants solicited business in California | Glines argues he is not subject to California general or specific jurisdiction; lives in Missouri | Transfer to Central District of California, Western Division is appropriate |
| Whether defendants purposefully availed or directed activities to California | Defendants conducted business and solicited investments in California; guarantees tied to those activities | Defendants deny sufficient California contacts (bare assertion) | Court finds purposeful availment/direction satisfied based on meetings and work in California |
| Whether Ishiyama’s claims arise from forum contacts | Loan guarantees stem from defendants’ California activities (meetings, execution) | Defendants did not meaningfully counter nexus argument | Court finds claims arise out of forum-related activities |
| Whether exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable | Not addressed by plaintiff beyond nexus and contacts | Defendants did not make a compelling case jurisdiction would be unreasonable | Court finds defendants failed to show unreasonableness; transfer is in interest of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (defines specific jurisdiction minimum-contacts test: purposeful availment or direction)
- Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure of any jurisdictional prong deprives defendant of due process)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (once plaintiff shows first two prongs, defendant must make a compelling showing that jurisdiction is unreasonable)
- Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1983) (§ 1406(a) and transfer to cure lack of personal jurisdiction when in interest of justice)