eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-05

ehealthline.com, Inc. v. Pharmaniaga Berhad ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 31 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
E*HEALTHLINE.COM, INC.,                          Nos. 20-17182
21-15642
Plaintiff-Appellant,
D.C. No.
v.                                              2:18-cv-01069-MCE-EFB
PHARMANIAGA BERHAD,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee,
and
MODERN INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
HOLDING GROUP COMPANY
LIMITED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 10, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, W. FLETCHER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
E*Healthline.com (“EHL”) appeals from the district court’s final judgments
(1) dismissing its action against defendants Pharmaniaga Berhand (“Pharmaniaga”)
and Modern Industrial Investment Holding Group Company Ltd. (“Modern”) for
lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) awarding attorney’s fees to Pharmaniaga. We
have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm the district court’s
dismissal of the action. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees.
1. We review de novo the district court’s determination that it does not have
personal jurisdiction over Pharmaniaga, a Malaysian company, and Modern, a
Saudi Arabian company. Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc.,
    874 F.3d 1064
    , 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). As plaintiff, EHL bears the burden of making a prima
facie showing that jurisdiction is proper. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co.,
    374 F.3d 797
    , 800 (9th Cir. 2004). To comport with federal due
process requirements, nonresident defendants must have sufficient minimum
contacts with the forum state “such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
    Id. at 801
     (quoting
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
    326 U.S. 310
    , 316 (1945)). We hold that EHL failed
to carry its burden.
The defendants’ business relationship with EHL, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in California, did not generate sufficient minimum contacts with
2
California because the “center of gravity” of their relationship with EHL lay
abroad, in Saudi Arabia. Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio de
Arroz Choloma, S.A.,
    972 F.3d 1101
    , 1108 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Thomas P.
Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional De Produccion De Costa Rica,
    614 F.2d 1247
    , 1253–54 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, the defendants’ alleged tortious trade
secret misappropriation is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction because it did not
create a “substantial connection with the forum [s]tate.” Walden v. Fiore,
    134 S. Ct. 1115
    , 1121 (2014). Any foreseeable “effects” of the alleged misappropriation
were only connected to California by virtue of EHL’s residence; the defendants’
actions did not implicate the state more broadly.
    Id. at 1124
    ; c.f. Calder v. Jones,
    465 U.S. 781
    , 788–89 (1984). Finally, the defendants’ other alleged contacts with
California—Pharmaniaga’s single visit to EHL’s offices and Modern’s engagement
with a California-based consultant—are too “attenuated” to suffice. Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
    471 U.S. 462
    , 475 (1985) (citation omitted); see also Morrill
v. Scott Financial Corp.,
    873 F.3d 1136
    , 1147 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[P]hysical entry
that is merely incidental to an out-of-state transaction does not satisfy the
constitutional minimum contacts requirement.”).
2. We review a district court’s award of attorney’s fees for abuse of
discretion. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,
    479 F.3d 1099
    ,
3
1104 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court awarded Pharmaniaga attorney’s fees
without making factual findings or stating its legal conclusions. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d)(2)(C). We therefore vacate the district court’s award and remand for
further proceedings.
We grant EHL’s motion to take judicial notice of documents from
Pharmaniaga’s related arbitral award enforcement action in the district court (Dkt.
Entry No. 21). Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.
4