Sneha Media & Entertainment v. Associated Broadcasting Co.
911 F.3d 192
4th Cir.2018Background
- Associated Broadcasting (ABC) is an Indian company producing TV9 news content; it contracted with Indian company Nord in India granting Nord exclusive rights to distribute ABC’s content outside India. Nord granted Sneha (a Virginia company) distribution rights for North America and Europe.
- Sneha and Nord allege ABC breached the Nord contract, interfered with Sneha’s DISH distribution, and infringed copyright by representing to DISH it had exclusive rights.
- ABC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Virginia; the district court held a hearing on a developed record and dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2).
- Relevant contacts: ABC is incorporated and headquartered in India; it had no offices, agents, property, or business registration in Virginia; ABC’s CEO visited Virginia 6–7 times (one informal business discussion); Sneha helped ABC reporters obtain U.S. visas and provided badges showing Sneha’s Virginia address, but reporters did not go to Virginia.
- Plaintiffs did not pursue jurisdictional discovery; the district court held a hearing after affidavits/exhibits and required plaintiffs to prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct standard (prima facie vs preponderance) | Plaintiffs: court used preponderance without an evidentiary hearing; prima facie standard should apply | ABC: parties had a fair opportunity to develop the record and present evidence at a hearing, so preponderance applies | Court: preponderance standard applied correctly because the parties developed the record and had a hearing; plaintiffs bore burden by preponderance |
| Whether Virginia has specific jurisdiction over ABC | Plaintiffs: ABC purposefully availed itself via CEO meetings in Virginia and use of Sneha’s Virginia office/badges/visa assistance | ABC: contacts were informal/social visits, contract was formed in India, operations and performance centered in India; no purposeful availment of Virginia | Court: insufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction; isolated meeting and visa assistance too attenuated |
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) provides jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: alternatively seek nationwide federal-jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) for federal claims | ABC: plaintiffs failed to show ABC is not subject to jurisdiction in any single state’s courts | Court: plaintiffs failed to prove no state could exercise jurisdiction over ABC, so Rule 4(k)(2) unavailable |
| Whether the asserted in-court hearing procedure precluded further discovery | Plaintiffs: lack of jurisdictional discovery prejudiced their showing | ABC: court did not preclude discovery; parties chose evidence and presented at hearing | Court: no abuse; parties had opportunity and elected not to pursue discovery; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. Anderson, 816 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard for Rule 12(b)(2) when parties have an evidentiary hearing vs prima facie review)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and foreseeability of being haled into court)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (framework for general jurisdiction: continuous and systematic contacts)
- Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2009) (factors for purposeful availment and surrogate-for-presence analysis)
- Perdue Foods LLC v. BRF S.A., 814 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2016) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test cited)
- Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2014) (prima facie standard and when in-person solicitations support jurisdiction)
- CFA Institute v. Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, 551 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2009) (repeated contacts and long-term relationship can show purposeful availment)
- Tire Engineering & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012) (email and coordinated activity in forum can support jurisdiction when critical to the scheme)
- Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (contracting with a forum resident does not necessarily establish jurisdiction when performance centered elsewhere)
- ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 1997) (contacts must be substantial enough to be a surrogate for presence)