Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. v. Michael Criden
696 F. App'x 189
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Saveri (California law firm) sued Criden (Florida law firm) over an alleged referral-fee agreement and sought to litigate in the Northern District of California.
- Criden moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court exercised jurisdiction and the matter was appealed.
- Dispute centers on whether an implied contract existed and whether Criden owes obligations under that contract (contract case, not tort).
- Key contacts: emails from Criden (to a California firm and to Saveri), Criden’s initiation of AAA arbitration (in Florida) against California plaintiffs, and Saveri’s performance of legal services in California.
- Court applied the Ninth Circuit’s specific-jurisdiction, three-prong test and determined the purposeful-availment standard governs contract disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has specific jurisdiction over Criden | Criden sent emails into California, tried to confirm the referral with Saveri, and initiated AAA arbitration, so it purposefully availed itself | Emails and arbitration do not establish purposeful availment; arbitration was in Florida and emails alone are insufficient | No specific jurisdiction — purposeful availment not met |
| Whether emails to California recipients establish minimum contacts | Emails created a contract-formation nexus with California | Communications alone are insufficient to invoke forum protections | Emails alone are insufficient for jurisdiction |
| Whether initiating AAA arbitration subjects defendant to California jurisdiction | Arbitration enforcement efforts targeted plaintiffs in California | AAA is not a California court; arbitration in Florida does not avail defendant to California law | Arbitration does not constitute availing to California’s laws |
| Whether plaintiff’s California activities can create jurisdiction over defendant | Saveri’s performance in California evidences the contract’s forum connection | Plaintiff’s contacts cannot be imputed to defendant for minimum-contacts analysis | Plaintiff’s contacts do not establish defendant-focused minimum contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (specific vs. general jurisdiction framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and substantial connection requirement)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (minimum-contacts inquiry is defendant-focused)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (contract alone does not establish minimum contacts)
- Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (affirmative conduct required to promote business in forum)
- Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244 (communications do not alone establish purposeful activity)
- Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (claims about existence of a contract sound in contract)
- Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (standard of review for personal jurisdiction)