89 F.4th 1188
9th Cir.2024Background
- Jane Doe, a California resident, alleges she was sexually abused as a minor and videos of this abuse were uploaded to major pornography websites (XVideos.com and XNXX.com), operated by Czech companies WGCZ and NKL, respectively.
- The offending videos were viewed over 160,000 times, including by U.S. users; Doe repeatedly requested removal from 2017 until they were taken down in 2020 after her attorney intervened.
- WGCZ and NKL operate globally but use U.S.-based companies for services (e.g., Google, PayPal, CDNs) and derive substantial U.S. website traffic and revenue.
- Plaintiff brought a putative class action raising various federal and state law claims against these and related foreign entities, but the district court dismissed claims against 11 foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court held no personal jurisdiction existed over WGCZ and NKL, and thus also over the remaining foreign defendants alleged as their alter egos.
- On appeal, Doe challenged only the personal jurisdiction dismissal, not the merits of the underlying claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. courts have personal jurisdiction over WGCZ/NKL under Rule 4(k)(2) and due process | WGCZ/NKL purposefully directed activities at U.S. (using CDNs, targeted revenue, high U.S. traffic) causing foreseeable harm to U.S. resident | Websites aren't expressly aimed at U.S.; use of U.S. vendors and CDNs is generic, not targeted; so no sufficient minimum contacts | Court found sufficient purposeful direction and minimum contacts, meeting due process |
| Whether plaintiff's harms arise from WGCZ/NKL’s forum-related contacts | Harms stem from website operations purposefully targeting and profiting from U.S. viewers, so claims arise from U.S.-related activities | Claims do not sufficiently relate to U.S.-focused activities; websites aren’t uniquely directed to U.S. | Claims do arise from WGCZ/NKL’s contacts with U.S.; criteria met |
| Whether asserting jurisdiction is reasonable under due process | Exercise of jurisdiction aligns with fair play and justice; defendants have ongoing, profitable U.S. presence | Oppressive burden on foreign defendants; conflicts with Czech sovereignty | Asserting jurisdiction is reasonable given U.S. interests, minimal burden, no sovereignty conflict |
| Whether dismissal of other foreign defendants as alter egos was proper | If WGCZ/NKL are subject to jurisdiction, so are their alleged alter egos; discovery should be allowed | No jurisdiction over WGCZ/NKL means no jurisdiction over others; moot to consider alter ego/discovery | Vacated dismissal; remanded for further proceedings on alter ego theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction pre-evidentiary hearing)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (personal jurisdiction must comport with due process and reach of authorizing law)
- Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th 972 (9th Cir. 2021) (personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants under Rule 4(k)(2), purposeful direction)
- AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (website targeting and personal jurisdiction)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (express aiming standard for interactive websites)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (arising out of or relating to forum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (jurisdiction for publication torts where harm occurs)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (minimum contacts required for due process)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction standard)