Free Request - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

l Restatement (2d) ef Terts § 766, cernrnent i; lyjiddleten v. Wallichs Eglusic and
2 Entertainment tlc,. Inc., 24 Ariz. App. 1813, 132, 536 P.2d IUT2, lt174(19'i’5); Cewley v.
3 Qraden lndusgies inc., 613 F.2d 751, T54 n.l [9111 Cir. 1939); imperial lce {QQ, v Ressier,
4 l l2 P.2d 631, 633 {Cal. 1941); Ramena tglgner Cenvalescent [jeep, v, Care Entemrises, 225
5 Cal. Rptr. 1211, 124 [App. 1936}. lvierecver, the actermnst "induce" the nenperfemttuice
6 ef the ccntract by actually causing the nenperfetmance. Restatement (2d) ef Terts § 266,
_ it cemment I1; 24 Ariz. App. at 132-B3, 536 P.2d at 1974-T5.
S Finally, te prevail en a claim ef tertieus interference with at business er centractual
9 relatienship, a plaintiff must- shew that it suffered damages as a result ef the tertieus
lt} interference. E , 233 Cal. Rptr. 294, 298 (1982) ["it must be reasenably
ll prebable the prespective eccnemic advantage weuld have been realized but fer defenda.nt's
12 interference").
13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew ef Plaintiff s centractual relatienship with
14 Willis, that Defendants acted in such a manner as te intentienally interfere with that ccntract, -
15- that Defendants interference directly led te Willis terminatien ef its ccntract with Plaintiff,
16 and that as a result Plaintiff has sustained dtunages. Based en these allegatiens, it is at least
12 pessible that Plaintiff will be able te demenstrate at trial that Defendants impreperly
13 interfered with its centractual relatienships by sending Fish and Reeves’ letter te Willis.} The
19 existence ef that pessibility precludes the {`Jetirt frem granting Se-Lite’s metien te dismiss
213 Plaintiffs claim fer interference with ccntract at this stage in the litigatien.‘°`
21 i i
22 tln its cemplaint, Plaintiff dces net limit its cause ef actien fer interference ef ccntract te i `
23 the Willis ccntract. Hcwever, because Plaintiff has net alleged that any ether centracrual
24 relatienship has been terminated, Plaintiffs claim necessarily be limited te its business
relauenship with Willis until such time as Plaintiff preduces cetnpetent evidence ef
25 additienal centracts that have been breached as a result ef Defenda.nts’ alleged interference.
·_ . 26 "ln enc ef his numereus mctiens te dismiss Fish, citing te Miken;} tiaming Carp. v. Acres
2,], , 165 F .3d S9ltFed.Cir. 1993), argues that Plaintiffs state based intentienal
interference with ccntract clann is preempted by federal law. Hcwever, if Plaintiff is able te
25 shew bad faith cn the part efDefendants, its claim will 11et be preempted.
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO67-SIVIIVI Document 131-16 Filed O4/28/2006 Page 1 of 4

l III. Mntinn tn Dismiss fnr Lack nf Psrsnnal J urisdistinn
2 Fish has mnvsd tn dismiss all rsmaining claims against him hsnauss hs hslisvss that
3 this Cnurt lanksjurisdistinn nvsr him.5 In suppnit nf his mntinn, Fish arguss that hs dnss nnt
4 npsrats a law prastiss in Arianna, dnss nnt snlisit nr prnmnts husinsss in Arianna, and has
5 nn psrsnnal snntants with Arianna. Plaintiff attsmpts tn hasn this Cnurt’s jnrisdistinrt nvsr
6 Fish, hnwsvsr, nn ths fast that Sn-Lits nirsulatsd Fish’s lsttsr tn at lsast havn husinsss in
T Arianna, and ths fast that Wi11is’ tsrmiriatinn nf its husinsss rslatinnship with Plaintiff in
3 Nsvada sffsstsd Plaintiff husinsss npsratinn in Arianna.
9 Tn sstahlish psrsnnal jurisdistinn, plaintiff has ths hurdsn nf shnwing that: (1} ths
19 fnrurn stats's lnng-arm statuts snnfsrs jurisdistinn nvsr ths nnnrssidsnt dsfsndsnt, and {2)
11 ths sxsrsiss nfjnrisdistinn nnmpnrts with prinsiplss nf dns prnssss. [rms gl; v, Laggstsii
12 $1ip Sit Bathyggsri A5, 52 F.3d 267, 269 (9* Cir. 1995). Arianna's lnng-arm statuts snnfsrs
13 jurisdistinn tn ths maximum satsnt allnwsd hy ths Dus Prnssss Clauss nf ths United States
14 Cnnstitntinn. Aria. R. Ciy. P.‘4.2(a);_ 11ns v. Amsrinan Nat'] Rsd Crnss, 112 F.3d 1943,
15 1951] (9th Cir. 1992}. Thsrsfnrs, ths nnly issus hsrs is whsthnr ths sxsrniss nf jurisdistinn
16 nvsr ths Eisfsndants ansnrds with dun prnssss. 5; fm sluk, 52 F.3d at 269. ·
. 12 Plaintiff nssd nnly maks a prima fasis shnwing nf jurisdintinnal fasts tn withstand
l3_ thsmntinn tn dismiss. Ballard v. Savags, 63 F.3d 1495, 1493 (9”‘ Cir. 1935} (sitingE
19 Agigntis Trading Cn, v.1*.·*1i"·.·" lvlajn Exp., 753 F.2d 1325, 1322 (9* Cir. 1935)). 1-lnwsvsr,
2111 "[t]hs msrs allsgatinns nf a nntnplaint, when snntradintsd hy affidavits, ars nnt snnugh tn
r 21 nnnfsr psrsnnal jurisdintinn nvsr a nnn—rssidsnt dsfsndant.“- Chsm Lah Prndusts, In;. v.
L 22 , 554 F.2d 37], 35*2 {Q"` Cir. 1927] {siting laylgig v. England Pararnnunt {Ing., 333
i 23 F.2d 634, 639 {9* Cir. 1967)}; Data Diss, 552 F.2d at 1234 {"1fnn1y nns sids nf ths nnnflint
24 .———-— i
25 Carp. v. Exag, Ins., 132 F.3d 134+3,1353 [Fsd.Cir. 1999). Bssauss it is pnssihls that Plaintiff
will hs ahls tn dsmnnstrats ths rsnuisits had faith, dismissal at this pnint wnuld hs
23 inapprnpriats. Ths Cnurt nntss, hnwsvsr, that this issus may hs raissd again at ths summary
gg judgmsnt stags shnuld it hs warrantsd.
23 5Nnns nf ths nthsr Dsfsndants havs disputsd this Cnurt jurisdintinn nvsr thsm.
- 7 - i
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO67-SIVIIVI Document 131-16 Filed O4/28/2006 Page 2 014

1 was suppcrtcd by affidavit, mtr task wnuld bc rclativcly easy, fdr wc tnay unt assumc thc
2 truth bf allcgatinns in a plcading which arc cnntradictcd by affidavit.") [citing IEE, 333
3 F .2d at 639). '1`hcrcfnrc, in dctcnnining whcthar plaintiff has rnct its burdcn, un-
4 cnntrnvcrtcd allcgatibns madc by Plaintiff arc takcn as truc, and cnntlicts bctwccn facts
5 cnntaincd in thc partics* affidavits arc rcsclvcd in Plaintiffs favnr.
is 94 rss 536, sss (st Cir. 1996).
7 Abscnt traditinnal bascs fcr pcrsnnal jurisdlctibn, (physical prcscncc, dmnicilc nr
3 ccnscnt) thc Duc Prnccss Clause rcquircs that nnnrcsidcnt dcfcndants have ccrtain minimum
9 with thc fdrum statc such that thc cxcrcisc nfpcrsnnal jurisdicticn dccs nct nffcnd
19 traditinnal nctinns df fair play and substantial justicc. & Intcmatinnal Shnc Ch. v.
ll Washingtnn, 326 U.S. 319, 316 (1945);@, 112 F.2d at1959; lijgtg Ilisg 3, Sysgms cch.
` 12 ,, 557 P.2d 1239, 1237 {9th Cir. 1977). - i
13 In datannining minimum cnntacts with thc fnrnm statc, ccurts fncus cn "thc
14 rclaticnship amcng thc dcfcndant, thc fcrum, and thc litigatidn." Shafts; v Hcitngr, 433
15 U.S. 136, 294 [1977). Than:. src nvn typcs bfpcrsnnaljurisdicticn a cciurt may cxcrcisc nvcr
16 a dcfcndant, gcncral nr spcciflc. SQQ Hglicnptcrcs Nacinnajcs da Cdldmhiav, Hall, 466 11.3.
. 17 493, 414-15 tui.3-9 [1934); @, 112 F.31;1 at 1959; 64 P.3d
13 479, 473 [9th Cir. 1995) (citing Rccbn·k1nt'l1.td. v, Mgl ,g_1ggh|]`p, 49 F.3d 1337, 1391 [9th
I i 19 Cir. 1995)). Thc naturc nf thc dcfcndanfs ccintacts with thc fnrum statc will dctcrininc
29 whcthcr thc cciurt can cxcrciac gcncral dr·spc»cificjurisdictinn nvcr thc dcfcndant. @
, 21 1. Gc11cra1Jurisdicticn
L 22 .4. cnurt may asscrt gcncral jurisdicticin nvcr a dcfcndant " [i]fthc dcfcndant's activitics i
23 in thc statc arc 'substantial' ctr 'ccntinucus and systematic; . . . cvcn if thc- causc nf acticn is
24 unrclatcd tn thnsc activitics." y, 112 F.3d at 1959-51 {citatinn nmittcd). Thc Ninth
25 Circuit has rcgularly dcclincd tn fmd gcncraljnrisdictinn cvcn whcrc a dcfcndant’s ccntacts
_ 26 with thc fcrum stats wcrc cxtcnsivc. Eimncn Egypt tlgil Cc, v. Lcnnis Nav. Cc. lnc. 1 F.3d
27 343, 351 n.3 [99 Cir. 1993), Ei; ds v, Sgdgiyjch Eisscciatcd Risks, Ltd., 796 P.2d 299, 391
23
. - g - i _
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO67—SI\/II\/I Document 131-16 Filed O4/28/2006 Page 3 of 4

1 [9* Cir. 1936) [standard fer finding general jurisdictien is “a fairly high standard in
2 practice"]; 292 P.2d 925, 923 {9th Cir. 1936) (helding that distributing
3 recerds te ferum retailers is insufficient te cenfer general jurisdietien); Helicepteree, 466
4 1.1.3. at 416-19 [helding that defendant's negetiatiens, training and purchases cendncted in
5 ferum state were insufficient centacts te satisfy requirements ef the Peurteenth Amendmenfs
6 Due Precess Clause); Keeten v. Bustler lvlaaazine lnc. 465 U.S. 2211, 229 { 1934) rfhelding
2 that the circulatien ef magazines in the ferum state weuld net suppert jurisdictien ever a
3 cause efactien unrelated te the magazines).
9 n A review ef the jurisdictienal facts alleged by Plaintiff plainly indicates that the
lll Arizena activities ef Fish de net rise te the level required fer this Ceurt te exercise general
11 jnrisdictien ever him. Plaintiff] hevvever, argues that since this Cem·t has jurisdictien ever
12 Se-Lite it alse has jurisdictien ever Fish by virtue ef the Defendants’ atterney-client
13 relatienship. 1-Ievvever, such an argument is an example efimpennissible beet-strapping, and
14 is centradicted bythe law efthis Circuit. Qee, Sher; v, lelgnsen, 911 F.2d 1352,1363 (9* Cir.
15 1999); and Petersen v, Kennedy, 221 F.2d 1244, 1261 [9* Cir. 1935). Censequently, an
16 exercise ef general jurisdietien ever Fish weuld vielate the due precess cause. Accerdingly,
12 sheuld this Ceurt exercise its jurisdictien ever Fish it must de se threugli specific
1 3 jurisdietien. _
n 19 2. Specific Jurisdictien
29 A ceurt may exercise specificjurisdietien ever a defendant if it detertnines that the
21 defendant has had rnjniinum with the ferum state such that the Due Precess‘Clause
22 will net be effended. Qee Qlme-Vent, ll F.3d at 1435; lntematienel Shee, 326 1.1.3. at 316. _
23 In determining whether a defendant’s centacts with the fertun state are sufhcient te subject
24 himaelfte the state's speeifiejutisdietien, the Ninth Circuit applies the fellewing three part
25 test: n
26
22 (l) The nenresident defendant must purpesely direct his activities er
23 censurnmate seme transactien with the ferum er resident thereetj er perferrn
- gr -
Case 2:O3—cv—OOO67-SIVIIVI Document 131-16 Filed O4/28/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 131-16

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 131-16

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 131-16

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 131-16

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 4 of 4