Webformix, Inc. v. Airspan Networks Inc.
6:10-cv-06229
D. Or.Dec 17, 2010Background
- Webformix sued Airspan Networks for breach of contract and misrepresentation/fraud.
- Webformix is Oregon-based; Airspan is incorporated in Washington with principal place in Florida.
- Ozrelic contacted Airspan about equipment; a California distributor was involved but no written agreement with Airspan or its distributors.
- Airspan moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue; Webformix filed supplemental briefing, which Airspan moved to strike.
- The court struck portions of the supplemental declaration for noncompliance and recommended dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Airspan | Ozrelic's contacts and marketing materials show Airspan directed activities toward Oregon | Airspan had no purposeful contacts with Oregon; no sustained or systematic activities | No personal jurisdiction; dismissal recommended |
| Whether the strike of Ozrelic’s declaration affects the jurisdiction analysis | Declaration supported Webformix’s arguments | Declaration noncompliant; proper to strike | Strike upheld; does not alter recommended dismissal |
| Whether Oregon long-arm statute and due process permit jurisdiction | Airspan engaged in forum-related activity via limited contacts | Contacts are insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction | Neither general nor specific jurisdiction established under ORCP 4 or due process |
| Whether the case should be dismissed on forum jurisdiction grounds | Oregon has jurisdiction under ORCP 4; contacts justify suit | No adequate contacts; forum shopping absent | Recommendation to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonable jurisdiction factors)
- Data Disc., Inc. v. Systems Tech. Ass'n., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) (jurisdictional facts may be shown by declarations and documents)
- Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (two types of personal jurisdiction; general vs. specific)
- Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470 (9th Cir. 1995) (due process and statutory analysis for jurisdiction)
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (website alone not sufficient for jurisdiction)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (active website that solicits business may support jurisdiction)
- Alexander v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 939 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1991) (burden on plaintiff to prove jurisdictional facts)
- Portland Trailer & Equip., Inc. v. A-I Freeman Moving & Storage, ? (2000) (economic loss rule in forum-specific jurisdiction)