PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas
2:21-cv-02129
D. Nev.
Feb 13, 2023

Background

  • Laila Mintas was CEO of PlayUp Inc. (PlayUp US) from 2019–2021; near the end of her term she negotiated a new employment contract.
  • PlayUp Ltd. (PlayUp AUS), the Australian parent, negotiated with FTX about a potential acquisition that later collapsed; PlayUp AUS sued Mintas in Australia alleging disparagement caused FTX to withdraw.
  • PlayUp US filed suit against Mintas in Nevada; Mintas filed counterclaims including against PlayUp AUS and its CEO Daniel Simic (the Australian Counter-Defendants).
  • PlayUp AUS and Simic moved to dismiss Mintas’s counterclaims for lack of personal jurisdiction; PlayUp AUS also argued forum non conveniens and international comity (the court did not reach those grounds).
  • Mintas sought to supplement her response with a deposition excerpt claimed to show Simic defamed her in Las Vegas; the court allowed the supplement.
  • The court granted PlayUp AUS’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied Simic’s motion to dismiss, and granted Mintas’s motion to supplement.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether PlayUp AUS waived jurisdiction via forum-selection clauses in Mintas’s employment agreements Mintas: PlayUp AUS is bound by the Nevada forum-selection clauses because it benefited from and exploited Mintas’s employment and thus waived objections PlayUp AUS: It never signed the agreements and did not knowingly agree to be bound; any benefit was indirect Held: No waiver — Mintas offered no evidence PlayUp AUS agreed to be bound, so PlayUp AUS did not waive jurisdiction objections
Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over PlayUp AUS Mintas: PlayUp AUS’s contacts (agents negotiating in Nevada; benefits from agreements) establish purposeful availment PlayUp AUS: It is not a signatory; contracting alone (and indirect benefits) is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Nevada Held: No specific jurisdiction — PlayUp AUS’s only asserted contact was a contract it did not sign; court dismisses PlayUp AUS for lack of personal jurisdiction
Whether the court should permit Mintas to supplement with a deposition excerpt showing alleged defamation in Nevada Mintas: The deposition was taken after briefing and directly supports her allegation that Simic defamed her in Las Vegas; filed promptly Simic: Supplement is untimely, constitutes improper attempt to amend, and adds nothing material Held: Grant — good cause exists because the deposition occurred after prior filings and may establish an intentional tort in Nevada relevant to jurisdiction
Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Daniel Simic based on alleged defamatory statements in Nevada Mintas: Simic allegedly made defamatory statements in Las Vegas; intentional tort in the forum satisfies the first two prongs of specific jurisdiction; Nevada witnesses and interest support jurisdiction Simic: He has minimal contacts with Nevada, would be burdened defending here, sovereign concerns with Australia, and Australia is an adequate alternative forum Held: Deny dismissal — specific jurisdiction exists over Simic; intentional-tort contact in Nevada plus reasonableness factors weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts/due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (forum-selection clauses and purposeful availment analysis)
  • Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (plaintiff cannot be the sole link for defendant’s forum contacts)
  • Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (general jurisdiction principles)
  • Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (U.S. 1940) (traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)
  • Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-prong specific jurisdiction test)
  • Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (purposeful availment analysis guidance)
  • Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero L. Grp., 905 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) (intentional tort in forum can establish jurisdiction)
  • Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff bears burden on first two prongs of specific jurisdiction)
  • Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (prima facie showing standard on jurisdictional facts)
  • Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (treat uncontroverted complaint allegations as true on jurisdictional motions)
  • In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (reasonableness factors for jurisdiction)
  • Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2015) (affirming analysis of jurisdictional reasonableness factors)
  • Paccar Int’l, Inc. v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K., 757 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1985) (intentional torts and jurisdiction)
Read the full case