The opinion, filed on September 12, 2011, is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion attached to this order.
With this amendment, the majority of the panel has voted to deny appellee's petition for rehearing. Judge Berzon has
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The majority of the active judges have voted to deny rehearing the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Judge O'Scannlain's and Judge McKeown's dissents from denial of en banc rehearing are filed concurrently herewith.
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, dissenting from the order denying rehearing en banc:
Due process allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if "the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). To meet this requirement in a tort case, a plaintiff generally must show that the defendant "expressly aimed" his tortious conduct at the forum state. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).
In this case, the panel majority disregarded that fundamental requirement of due process. It held that a Nevada court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant for his allegedly tortious conduct in Georgia even though: (1) all of the actions forming the basis of the plaintiffs' sole legal claim were taken in and directed at Georgia, and (2) when the defendant took those actions he did not know that the plaintiffs had any relevant connection to Nevada.
This ruling clashes with Supreme Court case law, exacerbates a conflict in our circuit law, begets a second intra-circuit conflict, and creates or deepens two lopsided conflicts with other circuits. The panel majority embraced the wrong side of each conflict. As Judge Ikuta recognized in dissent, the panel's holding "threatens a substantial expansion of the scope of personal jurisdiction." 657 F.3d 838, 864. We should have reheard this matter en banc to restore our circuit law and to harmonize it with that of the Supreme Court. I respectfully dissent from the regrettable failure to rehear this case en banc.
A gambling trip in San Juan, Puerto Rico, left Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson with some $97,000 in cash. In August 2006 they took their cash to the San Juan airport to fly to Atlanta and then to Las Vegas. 657 F.3d at 842-43.
At the San Juan airport, TSA agents searched Fiore, Gipson, and their carry-on bags. After discovering their $97,000, the TSA agents summoned three DEA agents. Fiore told DEA agent Michael Cuento that she and Gipson had been gambling in San Juan. Fiore and Gipson showed Cuento their California driver's licenses, told Cuento that they had California and Nevada residences, and said that they were returning to the Nevada residences. Cuento let them board the plane but told them they might be questioned later in their trip. 657 F.3d at 843.
When Fiore and Gipson arrived in Atlanta and headed to their connecting gate to Las Vegas, DEA agent Anthony Walden approached them. Fiore and Gipson said they were going to Las Vegas and showed
Fiore and Gipson then flew to Las Vegas. They forwarded to Walden documents substantiating that their money was legitimately obtained. They allege that, despite this documentation, Walden helped prepare a false probable cause affidavit to facilitate an action to forfeit their cash to the government. Walden allegedly submitted the affidavit to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. 657 F.3d at 843-44.
The Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the case ultimately concluded that the government lacked probable cause to forfeit Fiore and Gipson's cash. The cash was returned about seven months after Walden seized it. 657 F.3d at 844.
Fiore and Gipson sued Walden in Nevada under Bivens, alleging that Walden violated their Fourth Amendment rights when he seized their cash in Georgia. Fiore and Gipson did not allege that Walden knew that they had relevant Nevada connections or that Walden directed his conduct at Nevada when he seized the money. They did not allege, for example, that they told Walden that they had Las Vegas residences, that Cuento spoke with Walden, that Cuento told Walden of Fiore and Gipson's connection to Las Vegas, that Fiore and Gipson showed Walden any Nevada-issued identification, or even that Walden later learned of their Nevada residences. See 657 F.3d at 861 (Ikuta, J., dissenting). Because Walden's searchand-seizure conduct was "expressly aimed" at Georgia — and Walden thus had no contacts with Nevada that are relevant to Fiore and Gipson's one claim — the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A divided panel of our court reversed. The panel majority accepted that Walden's seizure of the cash was "expressly aimed" at Georgia and thus could not independently support personal jurisdiction over him in Nevada. 657 F.3d at 849. But the majority believed that "the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case" supported jurisdiction in Nevada. Id. (emphasis added). When Walden prepared the allegedly false affidavit, the majority contended, he knew that Fiore and Gipson had "significant connections" to Nevada. Id. at 851. The majority hypothesized that Walden by then knew of these "significant connections" because the plaintiffs told him that they were going to Las Vegas, the plaintiffs' funds were allegedly identifiable as originating from and returning to Las Vegas, Walden or someone else ran background checks on the plaintiffs after they returned to Nevada, and Fiore and Gipson sent Walden documents from Nevada. Id. at 850-51.
Based on these connections, the majority concluded that Walden "expressly aimed" his conduct at Nevada when he prepared the affidavit. 657 F.3d at 854; see id. at 850-51. Although this affidavit-related conduct did not form the basis of Fiore and Gipson's one and only claim — a Fourth Amendment claim based on the seizure at the Atlanta airport — the majority held that such conduct could support the exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction in Nevada over that claim. Id. at 858. The panel remanded to the district court
Judge Ikuta dissented. "As a matter of simple logic," she explained, "a defendant cannot `expressly aim' an intentional act at a victim's home state if the defendant committing the action does not even know that the victim has any connection with that state." 657 F.3d at 862. Because Walden did not know of the plaintiffs' ties to Nevada when he seized their cash — and because the seizure forms the basis for the plaintiffs' only claim — he could not have expressly aimed his relevant conduct at Nevada. Id. at 862-63.
Noting that this should have been "the end of the matter," Judge Ikuta faulted the majority for allowing jurisdiction based on the false affidavit "aspect" of the case. 657 F.3d at 862, 863. The false affidavit was not used to seize the plaintiffs' cash; it was prepared after the seizure, to facilitate a forfeiture action. See id. at 861, 863. Thus, Judge Ikuta explained, any affidavit conduct could not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the seizure claim because the court could not say, as required by due process, that the seizure claim arose out of or related to Walden's later conduct in preparing the affidavit. Id. at 864.
The panel decision conflicts with Supreme Court case law, with decisions of other circuits, and with decisions of our court. We should have taken this case en banc to eliminate those conflicts.
The panel decision conflicts with Calder v. Jones, which holds that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a tort defendant only if the defendant "expressly aimed" his tortious conduct at the forum state. 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482.
For a court to have specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident tort defendant, (1) the defendant must have purposefully directed specific activities toward the state forum, (2) the plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to those specific forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.2004). In this case, for example, Fiore and Gipson would have needed to establish "that Walden purposefully directed the actions that form the basis of [their] claim to Nevada." 657 F.3d at 862 (Ikuta, J., dissenting). To establish such "purposeful direction," a plaintiff must show that the defendant committed an intentional act, expressly aimed that act at the forum state, and thereby caused harm that the defendant knew would likely be suffered in the forum state. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 788-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482.
The panel decision stumbles in addressing Calder's express-aiming requirement. In Calder the defendants wrote and edited an article that allegedly libeled actress Shirley Jones, who lived and worked in California. Though the article was largely prepared in Florida (where the defendants resided), it was circulated broadly in California. In holding that a California court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the Supreme Court emphasized that the defendants had "expressly aimed" their allegedly tortious conduct "at California." 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The defendants had done so by making California "the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered": the defendants' article "was drawn from California sources" and "impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California." Id. at 788-89, 104 S.Ct. 1482.
Fiore disregards Calder's express-aiming requirement, holding that a Nevada court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Walden even though Nevada is not "the focal point" of the plaintiffs' only tort claim. Indeed, the majority took matters a step further, allowing personal jurisdiction even though Walden did not know of Fiore and Gipson's connections to Nevada when he seized their cash. "[W]hen Walden seized the cash, he knew only that the plaintiffs had California driver's licenses and were headed to Las Vegas." 657 F.3d at 862 (Ikuta, J., dissenting). Walden did not learn of Fiore and Gipson's ties to Nevada until after the seizure was complete. Id. Walden simply could not have "expressly aimed" his relevant conduct — the seizure conduct that forms the basis of Fiore and Gipson's one claim — at Nevada. His "conduct and connection with the forum State" are therefore not "such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The panel decision also conflicts with cases in other circuits over how to interpret and to apply Calder's express-aiming requirement. The majority of circuits have held that, under Calder, a defendant must expressly aim the conduct forming the basis of the claim at the forum state — not just at a known forum resident — before the courts of that state may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The Third and Fourth Circuits, for example, have held that a defendant "must `manifest behavior intentionally targeted at and focused on' the forum for Calder to be satisfied." IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 265 (3d Cir.1998) (quoting ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 625 (4th Cir.1997)). The Tenth Circuit has aligned itself with the Third Circuit in concluding that Calder requires "that the forum state itself" — not just "a known forum resident" — "must be the focal point of the tort." Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1074 n. 9 (10th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Seventh Circuit has agreed with these courts, noting that Calder "made clear" that a defendant must "expressly aim[] its actions at the state with the knowledge that they would cause harm to the plaintiff there." Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440, 445 (7th Cir.2010). The law of other circuits is in accord. See, e.g., Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 796 (8th Cir.2010); Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 485-86 (5th Cir. 2008); Noonan v. Winston Co., 135 F.3d 85, 90 (1st Cir.1998); United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825, 830 (D.C.Cir.1995); see also Reynolds v. Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n, 23 F.3d 1110, 1120 (6th Cir.1994).
The panel majority divided our circuit from these courts by deeming the express-aiming requirement satisfied when (1) all of the defendant's relevant conduct was aimed at Georgia, and (2) the defendant had no knowledge of the Nevada-based effects of his relevant conduct. The panel made the requirements of due process
The panel decision also deepens a conflict in our own circuit over how to interpret and to apply Calder's express-aiming requirement.
Even before the panel decision here, our circuit had not always been precise when developing our jurisprudence under Calder. Some of our decisions have emphasized that under Calder a defendant must expressly aim his conduct at the forum, not just at a forum resident. See, e.g., Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir.2006) (defendant's conduct must be "directed at" forum state); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th Cir.2004) (personal jurisdiction lacking in California because Ohio defendant's "express aim was local," not at California). But other decisions have suggested that a defendant may satisfy the express-aiming requirement just by targeting a known forum resident. See, e.g., Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.2001) (personal jurisdiction in Nevada proper because defendant's allegedly tortious conduct "individually targeted" plaintiffs, who defendant "knew were Nevada residents" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2000) (express-aiming requirement satisfied when "the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state").
This tension in our circuit law was cemented into a square conflict in Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.2010), which upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction because the defendant's allegedly tortious conduct individually targeted the plaintiff (a resident of the forum), even though the defendant did not expressly aim his conduct at the forum. See id. at 1129-30. This holding prompted a dissent calling out the majority for "disregard[ing] controlling circuit authority" requiring "conduct directly targeting the actual forum in question." Id. at 1132, 1133 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the dissent explained, "Pebble Beach and Schwarzenegger establish that knowledge of the plaintiff's residence and a foreseeable harm to the plaintiff are, standing alone, insufficient to establish express aiming." Id. at 1134.
In this case the panel majority went even further than did the panel majority in Brayton Purcell. Until now, our cases at least recognized that a defendant must know about the plaintiff's forum connections when he took the actions forming the basis of the plaintiff's claims. See, e.g., Myers, 238 F.3d at 1073 (defendant "knew [the plaintiffs] were Nevada residents"); Bancroft & Masters, Inc., 223 F.3d at 1087-88. This was still clear after Brayton Purcell, where the defendant's sole forum connection was his knowledge of the plaintiff's residence. 606 F.3d at 1135 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting).
But the panel majority here abandoned even this requirement. By allowing personal jurisdiction when a defendant did not even know that the plaintiff was connected to the forum, the panel took circuit law even further from Supreme Court case law than it was before. This should have been corrected en banc.
The panel majority seemed to recognize that if it just applied Calder, it would have
Under the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction, a defendant may be required to defend against "a claim for which there is no independent basis of personal jurisdiction so long as it arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim in the same suit over which the court does have personal jurisdiction." Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir.2004). The doctrine rests on considerations of "judicial economy, avoidance of piecemeal litigation, and overall convenience of the parties." Id. at 1181.
But the doctrine does not jettison the requirements of due process. To exercise the doctrine, a court must actually possess jurisdiction over at least one claim. This requirement satisfies the fundamental fairness concerns that counsel against haling a defendant into court in a foreign forum. Once that connection to the forum is made and "a defendant must appear in a forum to defend against one claim, it is often reasonable to compel that defendant to answer other claims in the same suit arising out of a common nucleus of operative facts." Action Embroidery, 368 F.3d at 1181. But it is not reasonable — it violates due process — to make a defendant answer to a "pendent" claim when the court does not have jurisdiction over a single claim at all. We have therefore authorized application of this doctrine only when the district court has personal jurisdiction over at least one claim. See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th Cir.2011); CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.2004); Action Embroidery, 368 F.3d at 1181. Fiore breaks from this authority and creates a conflict in our circuit law.
Because personal jurisdiction is analyzed by claim, other circuits have authorized pendent personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff has alleged at least one actual claim giving rise to personal jurisdiction. By failing to respect those bounds of pendent personal jurisdiction — and relying instead on a non-claim "aspect" of the case — the panel's ruling divides us from at least seven other circuits. See United States v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d 1263, 1272 (10th Cir. 2002) ("Pendent personal jurisdiction ... exists when a court possesses personal jurisdiction over a defendant for one claim, lacks an independent basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant for another claim that arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact, and then, because it possesses personal jurisdiction over the first claim, asserts personal jurisdiction over the second claim."); Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2001); Robinson Eng'g Co., Ltd. Pension Plan & Trust v. George, 223 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir.2000); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 628-29 (4th Cir.1997); IUEAFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1056-57 (2d Cir.1993); Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, G.m.b.H., 556 F.2d 1, 4-5 & n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1977); Robinson v. Penn Cent. Co., 484 F.2d 553, 555-56 (3d Cir.1973).
We should have reheard this case en banc to restore our circuit law on pendent personal jurisdiction and to bring it back in line with the decisions of other circuits.
It is rare that a panel of this court departs as substantially from controlling law and generates as many conflicts as the panel did in this case. The panel's holding breaks from binding authority, substantially broadens personal jurisdiction, and creates needless uncertainty in cases involving conduct that may have effects in places
I respectfully dissent.
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges GOULD, TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, BEA, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH join, dissenting from the order denying rehearing en banc:
With the stroke of a pen, our circuit returns to a discredited era of specific personal jurisdiction, where foreseeability reigns supreme and purposeful direction is irrelevant. That approach was, of course, rejected in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz; the Supreme Court was unequivocal that "foreseeability is not a sufficient benchmark for exercising personal jurisdiction." 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Instead, the Due Process Clause requires that before a distant state exercises specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must purposefully direct activities at forum residents resulting in injuries arising out of or relating to those activities. Under the majority's construct, mere knowledge of the potential out-of-state plaintiff's residence, along with a wrongful act, confers specific personal jurisdiction. This virtually limitless expansion of personal jurisdiction runs afoul of both due process guarantees and Supreme Court precedent.
A bare recitation of the facts reveals just how tenuous the forum (Nevada) connection is — individuals traveling to Nevada with California drivers' licenses had their Puerto Rico gambling winnings seized while in transit in Georgia. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Anthony Walden confiscated $97,000 in gambling winnings from Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson at the Atlanta airport. Walden told them that the money would be returned if they could demonstrate it was legitimately obtained. Upon arriving in Nevada, Fiore and Gipson provided Walden with evidence that the money constituted legitimate gambling winnings. The Assistant United States Attorney ultimately agreed, and the money was returned seven months after it was seized. Fiore v. Walden, 657 F.3d 838, 843-44 (9th Cir.2011).
In their complaint, Fiore and Gipson claim that Walden provided a false probable cause affidavit to the Assistant United States Attorney to support forfeiture proceedings. Id. They do not allege that Walden knew of their Nevada residence at the time of the seizure, a difficult claim to make since they presented California drivers' licenses. A close reading of the complaint shows they do not allege Walden knew of their Nevada residence even after the seizure. Because the allegations actually in the complaint are hardly sufficient to show express aiming, the panel opinion refers to "strong" indications that Walden came to know of Fiore and Gipson's Nevada residence after the initial taking, but before he prepared the allegedly misleading affidavit. Id. at 850. But even in their brief on rehearing, Fiore and Gipson equivocate, saying that "all indications" showed they "were not Georgia residents, and likely residents of Nevada or California" (emphases added).
A divided panel of our court held that Walden's preparation of the affidavit for the Assistant United States Attorney, with knowledge of Fiore and Gipson's residence, was sufficient purposeful direction at Nevada to sustain specific personal jurisdiction over Walden. Id. at 860. Dissenting, Judge Ikuta correctly recognized that purposeful direction requires more than simply alleging that "the defendant knew[plaintiff's] home state and subsequently engaged in some wrongful act." Id. at 864 (Ikuta, J., dissenting).
The purposeful direction requirement "ensures that a defendant will not be haled
Disregarding these constitutional limitations, the panel majority seizes upon a single act — Walden's affidavit, which ironically is not part of the district court or appellate record. For Nevada to constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over Walden based on the affidavit, he would need to be a "primary participant[] in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at a [Nevada] resident." Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). According to the complaint, Walden submitted a probable cause affidavit to a United States Attorney in Georgia regarding Puerto Rico gambling winnings seized in Atlanta. The affidavit was ostensibly aimed at continued retention of confiscated funds that Fiore and Gipson simply requested be returned to Nevada. Nevada was neither a "focal point" nor relevant to the affidavit. Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Since Fiore and Gipson's state of residence was both irrelevant and unknown during the initial taking, later knowledge of the potential forum state did not somehow alter the express aim of Walden's affidavit; the affidavit remained related to retention of funds seized in Georgia. Fiore and Gipson's state of residence remained irrelevant.
Asserting personal jurisdiction over Walden broadens the specific jurisdiction test from one requiring targeted "express aiming" to one where any attenuated foreign act with foresee able effects upon a forum resident confers specific jurisdiction. To reach this result under controlling case law, the panel majority sidesteps Walden's contacts with Nevada, concluding instead that "Walden expressly aimed his actions at people and property he knew from the outset were not local." Fiore, 657 F.3d at 850. The leap from knowing someone is "not local" to expressly aiming at Nevada is hard to divine.
This approach turns jurisdictional principles inside out. Under the touchstone "minimum contacts" requirement, even though "it has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts... the Court has consistently held that this kind of foreseeability is not a sufficient benchmark for exercising personal jurisdiction." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting "the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific jurisdiction.").
Notably missing in the majority's expansive new standard is a limiting principle. Only a wholesale expansion of the personal jurisdiction doctrine to mimic pre-Palsgraf tort standards would allow Nevada jurisdiction over Walden. See Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) (limiting foreseeability doctrine in tort). Walden could not have known or even reasonably foreseen that airing his views to a Georgia prosecutor regarding proceeds seized in Atlanta from a transient airport passenger were somehow expressly aimed at the voyager's home state. Yet,
Reasonableness is the foundation of personal jurisdiction. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477-78, 105 S.Ct. 2174. For a defendant to "reasonably anticipate" out-of-state litigation, it is "essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [him]self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) (citing Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154). If due process limitations on personal jurisdiction are to retain any guiding force, purposeful direction may not be collapsed into a diluted version of foreseeability. Because nothing is reasonable about returning to the unhinged, freeform foreseeability standard rejected by Burger King and Calder, I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc.
BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Federal law enforcement officers seized funds from passengers who were temporarily in the Atlanta airport changing planes. The travelers, Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson, explained that the funds were legal gambling proceeds, not evidence of drug transactions. Their story turned out to be true. Fiore and Gipson claim the seizure and later efforts to institute forfeiture proceedings were unconstitutional. They sued in Las Vegas, where they were heading, lived at least part time, and suffered the inconvenience of arriving with absolutely no money, as well as other financial injuries. The district court dismissed this Bivens
In July and August of 2006, Fiore and Gipson, professional gamblers, traveled from Las Vegas, Nevada, where both maintained residences, to casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, before returning to Las Vegas.
In San Juan, an agricultural x-ray inspection and other additional screening showed no contraband in Fiore's or Gipson's luggage. At a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint, Fiore and Gipson were subjected to heightened security procedures because they were traveling on one-way tickets. They were screened for minute traces of illegal drugs; none was found. Search of their carry-on bags revealed approximately $48,000 in Gipson's carry-on bag and $34,000 in Fiore's carry-on bag, all carried openly. Gipson also had approximately $15,000 on his person. These funds, totaling approximately $97,000 in United States currency, included approximately $30,000 in seed money for gambling — their "traveling
After this cash was discovered, San Juan Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Michael Cuento and two other agents arrived and questioned Fiore. Gipson was not questioned directly, but stood by and participated in the conversation. Fiore explained that she and Gipson had been staying and gambling at the El San Juan Casino property. When asked for identification, Fiore and Gipson showed their California drivers' licenses and stated that they had California residences, as well as residences in Las Vegas.
When they arrived at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport for their connecting flight to Las Vegas, neither Gipson nor Fiore left the transit area near the departure gates. At their gate, DEA Agent Anthony Walden and another DEA agent approached Fiore and began questioning her. Fiore said again that she was not carrying contraband, weapons, or drugs. She explained that she and Gipson were professional advantage gamblers
After about ten minutes of questioning, another DEA agent arrived in the boarding area with a drug-detecting dog. The dog did not react to Fiore's carry-on bag but pawed Gipson's bag once. The agents informed Fiore and Gipson that the dog's reaction sufficiently signaled contraband to indicate that their money was involved in drug transactions and then seized all the funds that Fiore and Gipson had in their possession. Although Fiore and Gipson asked to be allowed at least taxi fare for their arrival in Las Vegas, the agents denied the request. Walden told Fiore and Gipson that if they later produced receipts showing the legitimacy of the funds, their money would be returned. With this understanding, Fiore and Gipson boarded their flight to Las Vegas. When they arrived in Las Vegas, Fiore and Gipson learned that their checked luggage also had been searched in Atlanta.
On August 30, 2006, and September 15, 2006, Fiore and Gipson sent Walden, from Las Vegas, various documents showing the legitimacy of their funds, including federal tax returns demonstrating that they were professional gamblers; the itinerary, hotel records, and receipts from their trip, which
The funds, however, were not returned to Fiore and Gipson. Instead, the matter was forwarded to DEA headquarters in Virginia for additional investigation.
The case was referred to Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Dahil Goss. After determining that Walden had in fact omitted information, with the result that the probable cause affidavit he provided was misleading, Goss concluded that there was no probable cause for the forfeiture of the funds. Goss contacted Fiore and Gipson and offered to return their funds in exchange for a release, presumably of any possible legal claims, but they refused to execute one. Nonetheless, Goss directed the DEA to return Fiore and Gipson's money. The $97,000 was returned to them in Las Vegas on March 1, 2007, nearly seven months after the seizure at the Atlanta airport and six months after Fiore and Gipson had provided Walden with the requested documentation showing the legal source of their funds.
Fiore and Gipson brought a Bivens action in the District of Nevada against Walden and three other, unnamed DEA agents or attorneys
Walden moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and for improper venue, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). The district court determined that Walden's search of Fiore's and Gipson's bags and initial seizure of their funds occurred in, and was expressly aimed at, Georgia. Therefore, the district court concluded, there was not personal jurisdiction over Walden in Nevada.
On appeal, Fiore and Gipson challenge dismissal of their case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Walden, the only defendant-appellee. They also argue that Nevada is the appropriate venue. We review de novo a district court's rulings on personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1127.
"`When subject matter jurisdiction is premised on a federal question, a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if a rule or statute authorizes it to do so and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the constitutional requirement of due process.'" Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting AT & T Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 589 (9th Cir.1996)). Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, we look to the law of the state in which the district court sits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).
Nevada's long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. Myers, 238 F.3d at 1072; Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 109 Nev. 687, 857 P.2d 740, 747 (1993); Nev. Rev.Stat. 14.065(1). Our analysis therefore focuses exclusively on due process considerations. The due process analysis, in turn, centers on whether Walden has "certain minimum contacts" with Nevada, such that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).
Our court uses a three-part test (the Schwarzenegger test) for determining specific personal jurisdiction — that is, personal jurisdiction premised on the particular circumstances underlying the lawsuit sought to be litigated:
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases added).
In response to Fiore and Gipson's first amended complaint, Walden moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. His motion included a declaration stating that he was a police officer for the City of Covington, Georgia, and was deputized as a federal narcotics investigator assigned to the DEA Task Force Group 1 at the Atlanta airport. The purpose of the task force was to interdict illegal drugs, seize the drugs and any proceeds found, and prosecute individuals transporting illegal drugs or drug proceeds. Walden also stated that (1) he is a Georgia resident who had never resided, owned property, conducted business, or even been in Nevada; (2) he intercepted Fiore and Gipson at the Atlanta airport after he was informed by San Juan law enforcement officers that Fiore and Gipson had boarded a plane to Atlanta en route to their final destination, Las Vegas, Nevada; (3) when he asked plaintiffs for identification, they presented drivers' licenses that "were not issued by the State of Nevada"; (4) after the seizure, Walden and the other DEA agents "immediately transferred the seized cash to a secure location" for storage; (5) "[w]ithin approximately one hour of the seizure, [Walden] was no longer in possession of the seized cash"; and (6) Walden "did not possess the authority to return the cash to [Fiore and Gipson] once it was seized."
The district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding personal jurisdiction.
In determining whether there is personal jurisdiction, we have drawn inferences from the facts alleged in the complaint, but have not expressly addressed the standard for doing so.
We agree with these various circuits regarding the standard for drawing inferences from the complaint when addressing personal jurisdiction questions: We will draw reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of the plaintiff where personal jurisdiction is at stake, and will assume credibility. This approach is in line with the pleading standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). See id. at 1949 ("A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.").
Throughout the ensuing discussion, we concentrate on the false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect of this case, because, as we explain below, we ultimately remand with respect to the initial search and seizure claim, for consideration of the application of the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction. See Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir.2004); pp. 586-87, infra.
The first part of the Schwarzenegger test is subdivided into purposeful direction, which most often applies in tort cases, and purposeful availment, which most often applies in contract cases. 374 F.3d at 802; see Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1155. Fiore and Gipson have alleged a tort action,
We analyze purposeful direction under the three-part test derived from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), commonly referred to as the Calder-effects test. See Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1128; see also Calder, 465 U.S. at 788-91, 104 S.Ct. 1482; Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803. Under the Calder-effect test, "`the defendant allegedly must have[(a)] committed an intentional act, [(b)] expressly aimed at the forum state, [(c)] causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.'" Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1128 (quoting Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)).
"[D]ue process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant who `purposefully directs' his activities at residents of a forum, even in the `absence of physical contacts' with the forum." Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803
The "intentional act" prong of the Calder-effects test is satisfied in this case, as the district court recognized. "We construe `intent' in the context of the `intentional act' test as referring to an intent to perform an actual, physical act in the real world, rather than an intent to accomplish a result or consequence of that act." Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 806. Submitting a false and misleading probable cause affidavit and referring the case for forfeiture proceedings in the absence of probable cause were intentional acts. See, e.g., Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir.2000) (sending a letter was an intentional act).
The "express aiming" prong of the Calder-effects test presents a more difficult question. The district court reasoned that "Walden's intentional act — the search of Plaintiffs' luggage and seizure of their currency — was expressly aimed at Georgia, not Nevada," because Walden's questioning of Fiore and Gipson, his search of their luggage and his seizure of their money all took place in Georgia. We may assume that is so. But, the district court, as noted, did not consider the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case, as to which the express aiming prong, we conclude, is satisfied.
In general, where there was "individual targeting" of forum residents — actions taken outside the forum state for the purpose of affecting a particular forum resident or a person with strong forum connections — we have held the express aiming requirement satisfied. See Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1129-31; Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1157; Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2002); Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1087.
For example, the maintenance of a passive website did not satisfy the express aiming requirement, even though the website was viewed by forum residents, because there was no "individualized targeting" involved in "merely registering and operating a passive informational website." Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1130. Similarly, there was no express aiming in Schwarzenegger, which involved an Ohio car dealership's unauthorized use of Arnold Schwarzenegger's photograph in local advertisements, none of which were circulated in California, the forum in which Schwarzenegger brought suit. 374 F.3d at 799-800. The "express aim was local," as the defendant intended the advertisement at issue to have only local effects. Id. at 807. The fact that the advertisement may have had forum effects, such as diminished compensation due to the "over-saturation of [Schwarzenegger's] image," id. at 800, was not sufficient to satisfy the express aiming prong. Id. at 807.
With respect to the allegedly false affidavit and referral for forfeiture proceedings, the indications that Walden was expressly targeting Fiore and Gipson in Nevada are strong. From the outset, Walden must have known and intended that his actions would have impacts outside Atlanta. Walden confronted Fiore and Gipson at their boarding gate for a plane to Las Vegas, after learning from agents in San Juan that they had just flown from there. So he knew that they were merely changing planes in Atlanta, not staying there. When Walden spoke to them, Fiore and Gipson evidenced no connections whatever to Georgia; they said they were going to Las Vegas, and showed California drivers' licenses. Thus, Walden expressly aimed his actions at people and property he knew from the outset were not local.
Moreover, on the complaint's allegations, Walden definitely knew, at some point after the seizure but before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit, that Fiore and Gipson had a significant connection to Nevada. First, Fiore and Gipson's complaint states that "the funds were readily identifiable [as] originating and returning to Las Vegas as the ordinary static place where they were situated as plaintiffs' bank for gambling." The complaint then goes on to state that "Walden ... told plaintiffs in no uncertain terms that if they later produced legal receipts demonstrating the legitimacy of the funds, the funds would be returned." Attempting to so demonstrate,
(emphasis added). At this point, the complaint alleges, "Walden necessarily recognized that in addition to a `bank' held by Gipson for his seed money in gaming and necessarily originating in Nevada, the seized funds included at least $30,000.00 in cash received from legal gaming win[nings] in Puerto Rico." The complaint also alleges that "[a]ll defendants recognized at all times that the destination of the funds at the time of the seizure was Las Vegas, Nevada, and that a substantial amount of the currency had also originated at Las Vegas, Nevada."
Finally, the complaint alleges that after Fiore and Gipson arrived in Las Vegas, "either Walden or Defendant C, with Walden's acquiessance [sic] and encouragement, searched data bases for background on plaintiffs including data bases compiled and maintained in Nevada," and that "[t]hese searches indicated that the plaintiffs were `squeaky clean.'" Moreover,
"Nevertheless, despite demand, despite knowledge of innocence, and despite the duty to return the funds, the funds were not returned to Las Vegas as required." Finally, according to the complaint, the funds ultimately were returned to Fiore and Gipson in Las Vegas, by the prosecutor to whom the case had been referred after Walden submitted the false affidavit. Taken together, these allegations indicate that at the time the assertedly false affidavit was composed and filed, Walden recognized that the plaintiffs had significant connections to Nevada, particularly with respect to the funds for which forfeiture was being sought.
For the purposes of personal jurisdiction, it does not matter whether Fiore and Gipson were legal residents of Nevada or whether they simply had a significant connection to the forum, such that Walden's actions were "`performed with the purpose of having' its `consequences felt' by someone in [Las Vegas]." Ibrahim v. Dep't Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2008); see also Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. Ibrahim, for example, concerned a woman from Malaysia who had studied at Stanford but was leaving, permanently, on the day of the incident that gave rise to the lawsuit. 538 F.3d at 1253. The defendant, a resident of Virginia who had no ties to California, had from the Transportation Security Intelligence Service's office in Washington, D.C., instructed San Francisco police to detain Ibrahim after her name appeared on the federal government's No-Fly List. Id. at 1253, 1258. We held the purposeful impact on Ibrahim in San Francisco sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant, because it was apparent to the defendant that his order's consequences would be felt in San Francisco. Id. at 1258-59. This
Similarly, in Brainerd, a defamation case, Brainerd, the plaintiff had accepted a tenured position with the University of Arizona, after which the defendant made defamatory statements about him to his new employer. 873 F.2d at 1258. Whether Brainerd was an Arizona resident at the time the defamatory statements were made was not a factor in the opinion's analysis. Instead, Brainerd's known connection to Arizona was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Arizona over the defendant, a resident of Canada whose only contacts with Arizona consisted of communications with the University of Arizona regarding the plaintiff. Id. at 1258-59. The defendant "knew the injury and harm stemming from his communications would occur in Arizona, where Brainerd planned to live and work." Id. at 1259 (emphasis added).
In this case, the allegations in the complaint, taken as true for these purposes, establish that Walden necessarily recognized, at least by the time he wrote the probable cause affidavit, that the plaintiffs had a connection to Nevada that was at least as strong as in Ibrahim, in which the plaintiff left the forum state the day after the incident giving rise to the suit, never to return, 538 F.3d at 1253, or in Brainerd, where the plaintiff only planned to live and work in the forum where the injury occurred. 873 F.2d at 1259.
Thus, whether Fiore and Gipson were residents of Nevada at the time of the filing of the false probable cause affidavit is not determinative of the question of personal jurisdiction over Walden. Moreover, as in Ibrahim and Brainerd, it is not relevant who initiated the contacts with Nevada. See Ibrahim, 538 F.3d at 1258-59; Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. Instead, the critical factor is whether Walden, knowing of Fiore and Gipson's significant connections to Nevada, should be taken to have intended that the consequences of his actions would be felt by them in that state.
As to that issue, our precedents regarding personal jurisdiction in cases concerning fraud or similar causes of action are informative. That case law firmly establishes that if a defendant is alleged to have defrauded or similarly schemed against someone with substantial ties to a forum, the "expressly aimed" factor is met, even if all the defrauding activities occur outside the forum.
In Bancroft & Masters, for example, the defendant, a company based in Georgia, sent a letter to the company in Virginia that is the sole registrar of domain names in the United States, allegedly for the purpose of misappropriating a California company's domain name for its own use. 223 F.3d at 1087. This court held that the letter, sent from Georgia to Virginia, "was expressly aimed at California because it individually targeted [plaintiff], a California corporation doing business almost exclusively in California" and "the effects of the letter were primarily felt, as [defendant] knew they would be, in California." Id. at 1088.
Similarly, Metropolitan Life, decided before this court explicitly adopted the "express aiming" analysis, held that personal jurisdiction existed in California over Geneva Gambrell, an Alabama resident who purposefully defrauded James Neaves, a California resident, by sending a letter to an insurance company representing that Gambrell was entitled to a payment that she knew actually belonged to Neaves. Id.
The situation here is similar to those in Bancroft & Masters and Metropolitan Life. The complaint alleges that Walden fraudulently executed a false and misleading probable cause affidavit, used it to encourage the U.S. Attorney in Georgia to prosecute a forfeiture action, and thereby sought to obtain the funds for the Atlanta DEA.
In sum, with regard to the filing of the false probable cause affidavit, Walden individually targeted Fiore and Gipson, as he was aware of their significant connection to Nevada and of the likely impact of his defrauding actions on their property and business in Nevada. Under our case law, these facts satisfy the express aiming prong of the Calder-effects test.
The final prong of the Calder-effects test is the requirement that the conduct at issue caused foreseeable harm in the forum. We "do[] not require that the `brunt' of the harm be suffered in the forum." Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1207). Instead, the foreseeable-harm "element is satisfied when defendant's intentional act has `foreseeable effects' in the forum." Id. "If a jurisdictionally sufficient amount of harm is suffered in the forum state, it does not matter that even more harm might have been suffered in another state." Yahoo!, 433 F.3d at 1207.
The foreseeable harm factor, thus understood, is readily satisfied here. During their initial encounter, Walden knew from their plane tickets, and from the San Juan DEA agent, that Fiore and Gipson were heading to Las Vegas, along with
Taken as a whole, then, Fiore and Gipson's complaint satisfies the Calder-effects test. The complaint's allegations establish that, by falsifying the probable cause affidavit and attempting to secure permanently for the Atlanta DEA the seized funds, Walden committed (a) intentional acts that (b) individually targeted Fiore and Gipson in Nevada, and thus were expressly aimed at Nevada, and (c) caused foreseeable harm in Nevada. "An individual injured in [Nevada] need not go to [Georgia] to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in [Georgia] knowingly cause[d] injury in [Nevada]." Calder, 465 U.S. at 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Accordingly, Fiore and Gipson have made a prima facie showing of purposeful direction. See Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1128-31.
We turn to the second part of the Schwarzenegger test: forum-related conduct. 374 F.3d at 802.
This circuit "follows the `but for' test" to determine forum-related conduct. Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Myers, 238 F.3d at 1075). Fiore and Gipson must show that they would not have suffered the alleged injuries in Nevada "but for" Walden's false probable cause affidavit and attempt to facilitate a forfeiture prosecution. See id. As in Menken, the standard is "easily met" here. Id. at 1059.
Fiore and Gipson have alleged that they would not have been deprived of their "bank" and the proceeds of their gambling trip for nearly seven months but for the seizure of all of their money in Atlanta, combined with Walden's actions that helped delay the return of the funds. Had Walden not filed the false probable cause affidavit, one can infer, the funds would have been returned considerably sooner. The forum-related conduct factor is therefore present.
As Fiore and Gipson have met their burden of satisfying the first two parts of the Schwarzenegger test for establishing personal jurisdiction in Nevada, the burden shifts to Walden to satisfy the third part — "`present[ing] a compelling case' that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable" in Nevada. Menken, 503 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802). To determine reasonableness, we balance seven factors:
Id. at 1058 (quoting CE Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2004)).
Regarding the first factor, Walden argues that because the initial search and seizure occurred in Georgia, his actions did not inject him into the affairs of Nevada. We have recognized that circumstances may exist where "the level of purposeful injection into the forum supports a finding of purposeful availment yet still weighs against the reasonableness of jurisdiction." Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1115. But that hypothetical situation does not exist here.
When Walden sought out Fiore and Gipson at their boarding gate at the Atlanta airport, he knew that their presence in Georgia was fleeting, and that they were going to Nevada. Without probable cause, he seized all of Fiore and Gipson's money, approximately $97,000, which also was destined for Nevada. Even if Walden did not know at the time he seized the funds that Fiore and Gipson had ongoing, substantial connections to Nevada, he necessarily learned of these connections at some point before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit and referring the case for forfeiture proceedings.
As it turned out, the impact of the intentional torts alleged, which involved taking a large sum of money from Fiore and Gipson, would necessarily have their primary impact where the funds were meant to be kept and used, Nevada. As an airport law enforcement officer, Walden was necessarily aware that his actions would often have their principal impact outside of Georgia, as many of the people he investigates are in Atlanta only on their way to somewhere else.
Concerning the second factor, Walden maintains that he would be burdened because he has never resided, visited, owned property, or conducted business in Nevada. Were Walden a local small business
When federal employees are sued under Bivens, the government, as a rule, provides for their defense, and, ultimately, indemnifies them. See 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. As Fiore and Gipson pointed out in their brief to this court, Walden appeared in Nevada "represented by the world's largest law firm with offices in all fifty states and providing defense free of charge (The Office of the United States Attorney)." On appeal, Walden is represented by the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which often appears in this court. Fiore and Gipson, in contrast, had to retain counsel to seek redress for their alleged constitutional injuries. Walden's burden in defending this case is thus small as compared to the likely burden on Fiore and Gipson were the case brought in Georgia. This factor therefore does not weigh in favor of Walden, although it would in all probability weigh in favor of many airport-connected defendants not associated with the federal government.
The third factor, the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of Georgia, favors Fiore and Gipson. This is a federal action that will be resolved in federal court. The federal government, not Georgia, was the entity on whose behalf the funds were seized and retained. And as Fiore and Gipson have no connection to Georgia, Georgia has no interest in protecting their interests. Consequently, redress of Walden's tortious conduct that injured Nevada residents in Nevada will not "infringe on the sovereignty of [Walden's] home state of [Georgia]." Ibrahim, 538 F.3d at 1259.
Nevada has "`a strong interest in providing an effective means of redress for its residents who are tortiously injured.'" Id. (quoting Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 475). Fiore and Gipson are Nevada residents; a substantial portion of their $97,000 that Walden seized originated in Nevada; the money was en route to Nevada when seized; the seized money was destined to enter Nevada's economy and tax base; the money eventually was returned to Fiore and Gipson in Las Vegas, Nevada; and Fiore and Gipson have incurred considerable attorneys' fees in Nevada in securing the return of their unlawfully seized, legitimate earnings and in filing this action to redress the financial injuries they suffered in Nevada. For all these reasons, Nevada has a considerable interest in adjudicating this dispute. See id.
The fifth factor concerns efficiency of the forum, a consideration that turns primarily on the location of witnesses and evidence. See Menken, 503 F.3d at 1060-61. Fiore and Gipson represent that their witnesses likely will include: three people from San Juan, Puerto Rico; three from Atlanta, Georgia; one from Quantico, Virginia; and at least Fiore and Gipson from Las Vegas, Nevada. If Walden places at issue Fiore's and Gipson's reputations as proficient, practicing gamblers, additional Nevada witnesses likely will be necessary.
Fiore and Gipson also emphasize that their documentation was generated in and is located in Nevada. These documents, including voluminous records sent to Walden from Nevada, which evidence that
In contrast, Walden argues only that the witnesses in Georgia are the most important, that the "operative versions" of Fiore and Gipson's documents are "those received by DEA in Georgia."
Overall, this factor is fairly evenly balanced, weighing, if at all, only slightly in favor of Fiore and Gipson.
The sixth factor, the importance of Nevada to Fiore and Gipson's convenient and effective relief, generally is not given much weight in this circuit. See Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1116 (noting that "in this circuit, the plaintiff's convenience is not of paramount importance"). It does, however, weigh in Fiore and Gipson's favor. Fiore and Gipson are Nevada residents; the seizure of their gambling proceeds by Walden occurred as they were changing planes in Georgia, a state to which they appear to have had no other connection. All of their financial injury was realized in Nevada, which is also the location of their documentation. Fiore and Gipson also have a continuing relationship with a Nevada law firm. For all these reasons, Nevada is a convenient and effective forum for them.
For the reasons given in evaluating the preceding six factors, although Georgia is an available forum in the sense that the suit against Walden could have been brought there, Georgia is not a preferable alternative to Nevada. In addition, at this preliminary stage of proceedings, the parties have not had the benefit of discovery to identify the other DEA employee who made relevant decisions regarding the false affidavit and attempt to instigate forfeiture proceedings while retaining the seized funds. According to the complaint, that individual operated from Virginia. As to him or her, Georgia might not be an available forum, but Nevada would be, for the same reason it is a proper forum for suit against Walden.
Taken as a whole, the seven-factor reasonableness analysis disfavors Georgia as a forum, and, overall, mildly favors Nevada. Walden has not come close to making a "compelling case" that exercise of jurisdiction over him in Nevada would be unreasonable. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
Due process is met when there is "`a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.'" Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). The actions related to the false probable cause affidavit satisfy the express aiming prong, as well as the other requirements for personal jurisdiction. Under Calder and Schwarzenegger, it is reasonable and comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice for Fiore and Gipson to call Walden to answer in Nevada for those deliberate actions.
Under these circumstances, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Walden, at least as to the portion of Fiore and Gipson's complaint pertaining to the false probable cause affidavit and resulting delay in returning the funds.
Under our case law, the district court may exercise pendant personal jurisdiction over the remainder of Fiore and Gipson's claims even if there would not be personal jurisdiction over them standing alone. Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.2004). Action Embroidery was the first case in this court adopting the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction, id. at 1181, under which "a court may assert ... jurisdiction over a defendant with respect to a claim for which there is no independent basis of personal jurisdiction so long as it arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim in the same suit over which the court does have personal jurisdiction." Id. at 1180. The facts underlying a particular claim need not exactly track the facts underlying the claims for which there is personal jurisdiction, so long as the core facts are the same. See CE Distrib., 380 F.3d at 1113-14.
Here, the core facts of all of Fiore and Gipson's claims arise out of the same incident: Walden's seizure of their funds at the Atlanta airport. When he seized their funds, Walden knew that Fiore and Gipson were traveling to Las Vegas and that they had no connection to Georgia beyond their transit through the airport. Walden first individually targeted Fiore and Gipson when he confronted them at their gate as they were about to board, and the funds then seized were the same funds as to which forfeiture was sought through the submission of the false affidavit. Further, and critically, the false affidavit was false — or not — in its description of the events at the Atlanta airport surrounding the seizure. So the same facts will have to be developed with regard to the search and seizure and false affidavit claims. Consequently, even if those facts are not sufficient independently to give rise to personal jurisdiction over Walden
In Action Embroidery, this court accepted for purposes of the appeal the defendant's contention that there was no personal jurisdiction over state-law claims standing alone, but held that the district court could exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over them. 368 F.3d at 1180. We follow the same course here and remand to the district court "to decide whether to retain or dismiss the pendent [search and seizure] claims." Id. at 1181.
Although Walden raised the defense of improper venue in the district court, the issue was not addressed once the court determined that there was no personal jurisdiction over Walden in Nevada. Because we have concluded otherwise, we also consider his defense of improper venue, which he pursues on appeal.
The controlling statute provides in relevant part: "A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in ... a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (emphasis added). Walden contends that Nevada is an improper venue for this action because it has no relationship to the event about the seizure of Fiore and Gipson's $97,000 at the Atlanta airport.
"[I]n a tort action, the locus of the injury [is] a relevant factor" in making this determination. Myers, 238 F.3d at 1076. In Myers, the fact that "at least one of the `harms' suffered by Plaintiffs ... was felt in Nevada" was sufficient to make venue proper in Nevada. Id. Fiore and Gipson similarly suffered harm in Nevada. All the economic injuries suffered by Fiore and Gipson were realized in Nevada, including
Walden seized all of the large amount of money Fiore and Gipson were carrying with them as they travelled from San Juan to Las Vegas via Atlanta. Although Fiore and Gipson sent Walden, from Nevada, documentation establishing the legitimate sources of their funds, he persisted in seeking forfeiture of their money. Walden's intentional acts with regard to the false probable cause affidavit and the consequent delay in returning their money were expressly aimed at Nevada and so satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction. As to the search and seizure claim, we are remanding it to the district court for the exercise of discretion with regard to pendent personal jurisdiction. We also hold that venue is proper in the District of Nevada.
As the foregoing analysis makes clear, Judge O'Scannlain's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc criticizes an opinion we did not write. Fiore and Gipson's complaint alleges not only that Walden seized their funds in violation of the Fourth Amendment — a claim we assume does not independently support personal jurisdiction in Nevada, see supra pages 576-77 — but also that among other things, by filing a false affidavit, he effected a continued seizure of these funds, also in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge O'Scannlain ignores these latter allegations, but they are clearly — indeed, predominantly — pleaded in the complaint, which alleges:
After that, the summarizing paragraph states:
As we have explained, according to the complaint, Walden was well aware of Fiore, Gipson, and the seized funds' substantial connection to Nevada by the time he filed the false affidavit, sought forfeiture of the funds, and withheld exculpatory evidence. Under our caselaw and that of the Supreme Court, these known connections are more than sufficient to support personal jurisdiction. Moreover, far from holding that the plaintiffs' residence is determinative, as Judge O'Scannlain suggests, we have expressly held that it is not. See supra pages 579-80. Although the opinion Judge O'Scannlain imagines we issued might well merit further review, the one we actually wrote does not.
We agree with Judge McKeown's statement in her dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that for Nevada constitutionally to exercise jurisdiction over Walden, he would need to be a "`primary participant[] in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at'" Nevada. 688 F.3d 558, 569 (9th Cir.2012) (McKeown, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (quoting Calder, 465 U.S. at 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482). We disagree, however, for reasons we have explained, with her contention that this standard has not been met here.
In particular, contrary to Judge McKeown's assertion that "Nevada was neither a `focal point' nor relevant to the affidavit," the complaint alleges that the "funds were readily identifiable [as] originating and returning to Las Vegas as the ordinary static place where they were situated as plaintiffs' bank for gambling" and that, when eventually returned, the funds were returned to Nevada. Fiore and Gipson allege that, by filing a false affidavit to support continued retention of these funds, Walden wrongfully perpetuated a seizure of funds he knew originated in and were returning to Nevada, belonging to people he knew had substantial connections to that state, all in an effort "to support the continued retention" of the funds. That is, the complaint alleges that Walden was a primary participant in a wrongdoing intentionally and directly — not just foreseeably or derivatively — targeting Nevada funds and persons.
Under our case law, these allegations unquestionably support personal jurisdiction in Nevada. Our cases hold that where a defendant's actions have only an indirect or unintended impact on forum-resident plaintiffs, even where a defendant knows of a plaintiff's forum-residence and could foresee such an impact, the express-aiming requirement is not satisfied. See, e.g., Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.2004). In contrast, where — as in this case — a defendant intentionally, individually, and directly targets a person — or, as here, funds — known
The complaint alleges not that Walden inadvertently filed a false affidavit, but rather that he intentionally filed an affidavit he knew was false, — allegations analogous to fraud.
A straightforward application of circuit precedent to the facts of this case leads easily to the conclusion that there is indeed personal jurisdiction over Walden in Nevada: Walden intentionally targeted persons and funds with substantial connections to Nevada. He thus expressly aimed his conduct at that state, providing a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction. There is nothing at all novel about this conclusion.
IKUTA, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Gambling, it is said, is a "sure way of getting nothing from something." Here, by contrast, two professional gamblers get something from nothing. Although their complaint contains nothing that would provide a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over the federal agent who allegedly violated their Fourth Amendment rights, the majority finds "something" in the complaint: specifically, the "false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect" of their case. Maj. op. at 576 (emphasis added). This "aspect," the majority determines, provides a basis for personal jurisdiction over the federal agent, even though it is neither a constitutional tort nor a state law claim, and even though plaintiffs never argued that it was. And the gamblers' lucky streak does not end there: the majority then reverses the district court for failing to discern this elusive "aspect" and to apply the entirely discretionary (and rarely invoked) doctrine of "pendent personal jurisdiction." In fact, the district court correctly determined that the complaint did not make a prima facie showing that the federal agent purposefully directed his actions to the forum state. Because the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for want of personal jurisdiction, I dissent.
The complaint in this case relates the following tale. Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson are professional gamblers. On their return from a gambling trip to San Juan, Puerto Rico, their "traveling bank"
Fiore told Cuento that she and Gipson had departed from the El San Juan Casino, where they had been gambling. Fiore and Gipson showed Cuento valid California driver's licenses, volunteered that they had Nevada and California residences, and indicated that they were returning to their residences in Las Vegas. Cuento escorted them onto the plane, but he told them they should not be surprised if they were asked further questions.
Fiore and Gipson landed in Atlanta and proceeded to their gate for their connecting flight to Las Vegas. There, they met agent Walden and another DEA agent who called for a drug-sniffing dog. Fiore and Gipson were (falsely, they say) informed that the dog had alerted. Agent Walden seized their cash, but assured them that if they produced receipts demonstrating that the funds were legitimate, their money would be returned. With that assurance, plaintiffs boarded their plane to Las Vegas. From the fact that their checked bags did not make it to Las Vegas with the plane, the disheveled state of the items inside, and the absence of a TSA sticker, plaintiffs surmised that the DEA, with the participation of agent Walden, conducted a search of their checked baggage.
Upon their return, Fiore and Gipson forwarded to Walden tax returns, receipts from their trip, their travel itinerary, and hotel records showing that they had gambled enough to have rooms "comped." They explained that Gipson had played under a legal alias he commonly used in gaming. They also sent a "win record" on El San Juan letterhead. Despite, as plaintiffs allege, "necessarily recogniz[ing] that the seized funds were not related to any illicit drug trade and were not contraband or the proceeds of contraband," Walden did not return their funds. Not only that, but they allege "on information and belief" that Walden, along with two unnamed defendants, worked "to provide a false probable cause affidavit, known by each to be false, for forwarding to the U.S. attorney in Georgia to prosecute a forfeiture action," an affidavit that Fiore and Gipson contend omitted exculpatory information.
Even though Walden necessarily recognized the funds' legitimacy, plaintiffs allege, he did not return the funds and referred the matter for prosecution because he "personally disapproved" of the strategies plaintiffs used in gambling.
If plausible, this story might support Fiore and Gipson's claim that Walden seized their traveling bank in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. But there is one problem: Fiore and Gipson filed the complaint against Walden in a district court in Nevada, but failed to allege that Walden had any contacts with that state for purposes of personal jurisdiction. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (personal jurisdiction cannot constitutionally be asserted unless defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice'" (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940))). Notably absent from plaintiffs' complaint is any allegation:
Indeed, the complaint does not expressly allege that even after the seizure, Walden became aware that plaintiffs' residence was in Nevada; it alleges only that plaintiffs forwarded their tax returns, trip receipts, and the like to Walden "from Las Vegas." And Walden's uncontested declaration makes clear that he never contacted plaintiffs' attorney "or anyone else in Nevada," and has never lived in, been to, owned property or conducted any business in Nevada.
Given these facts, and applying the applicable precedent, see Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004), the district court concluded that Walden's search of plaintiffs' luggage and seizure of the money "was expressly aimed at Georgia, not Nevada": the search occurred in Georgia, as did the questioning and the seizure. It therefore dismissed plaintiffs' action for want of personal jurisdiction. As explained below, the district court's thorough and well-reasoned decision was clearly correct.
For a court to have specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a tort suit, (1) the defendant must have purposefully directed specific activities toward the state forum, (2) the plaintiff's claim must arise out of or relate to those specific forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with "fair play and substantial justice." Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). In other words, in order for the district court to have asserted personal jurisdiction over Walden, it would have had to conclude that Walden purposefully directed the actions that form the basis of plaintiffs' claim to Nevada.
In determining whether the defendant "purposefully directed" the activities which are the subject of plaintiff's claim to the forum state, we consider whether the defendant "(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state." Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. at 788-89, 104 S.Ct. 1482). As a matter of simple logic, a defendant cannot "expressly aim" an intentional act at a victim's home state if the defendant committing the action does not even know that the victim has any connection with that state. See Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2000) ("From the available cases, we deduce that the [`express aiming'] requirement is satisfied when the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state."); cf. Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1258 (9th Cir.2008) (approving the exercise of personal jurisdiction in California where defendant, a Virginia resident with no other ties to California, ordered local police to prevent plaintiff from flying out of the San Francisco airport and to detain her for further questioning).
This framework creates a problem for Fiore and Gipson: when Walden seized
But it is not, because the majority shows more creativity construing the complaint than Fiore and Gipson did drafting it. That is, the plaintiffs allege one simple claim: a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The gravamen of Fiore and Gipson's complaint is that "[t]he search and withholding of [their] checked baggage ... was without probable cause, unreasonable, and also constituted an illegal search and seizure by the defendants." Or, as they later put it, "Defendants' actions constitute a violation of U.S. Const. Amd. IV in the unreasonable seizure and unreasonable continued seizure of the plaintiff's funds."
The majority, however, purports to flush out a second claim roosting amidst the lines of the complaint. According to the majority, there is a "false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect of [the] case," maj. op. at 575-76, which gives rise to "an allegation that Walden attempted to defraud Fiore and Gipson of the seized funds," maj. op. at 580-81 (emphasis added). Because, the majority explains, at the time Walden prepared the false probable cause affidavit, he knew plaintiffs had significant connections with Nevada, the district court erred in not asserting personal jurisdiction over Walden based on this false affidavit "aspect" of the case. Maj. op. at 580-81.
The majority's analysis completely misses the mark for a crucial reason: the complaint did not include a fraud claim. We analyze personal jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis. See, e.g., CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1076-77 (9th Cir.2011) (focusing the jurisdictional inquiry on plaintiff's state law misappropriation claim); see also Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir.2001) (stating that a district court's specific personal jurisdiction "is claim specific," meaning that personal jurisdiction over one defendant as to a particular claim does not necessarily give the court personal jurisdiction over that same defendant as to the plaintiff's other claims). The only claim in this complaint is a Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of property. There is no claim that Walden's preparation of the allegedly fraudulent affidavit violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights,
Nor did the plaintiffs bring a state fraud claim. In fact, the plaintiffs do not appear to bring any state claim at all: they claimed federal jurisdiction based on the general federal question statute (28 U.S.C.
Indeed, it is doubtful that the elements of a state law fraud cause of action are even lurking in the complaint. Under Nevada law, the elements of a fraud cause of action are (1) a false representation by defendant; (2) defendant's knowledge or belief that the representation was false; (3) defendant's intent that plaintiff act or refrain from acting in reliance upon the misrepresentation; (4) plaintiff's justifiable reliance upon it; and (5) damage to plaintiff as a result. Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir.2005). The complaint does not, however, allege that Walden intended plaintiffs to act or refrain from acting in reliance on the false affidavit, or that plaintiffs justifiably relied on the affidavit.
In any event, an unarticulated state law claim could not give the majority a basis for reversing the district court. When the district court, which had original jurisdiction only over the Fourth Amendment claim, dismissed that claim for lack of personal jurisdiction, it was well within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any implicitly lurking state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.2002) (district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Because plaintiffs based their claim on Walden's seizure of the cash (which not even the majority contends was purposefully directed toward Nevada) and did not, as the majority suggests, allege a fraud claim, it is impossible to say that plaintiffs' claim arose out of or related to Walden's conduct in preparing the allegedly false probable cause affidavit. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
The majority's reasoning threatens a substantial expansion of the scope of personal jurisdiction. If a district court commits reversible error by failing to give due weight to the "false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect" of a complaint, maj. op. at 576 (emphasis added), even where the parties never asked the court to do so, district courts must scour complaints to find some allegation of wrongful action that might have occurred after the defendant became aware of the plaintiff's residence. Such a ruling essentially requires courts to assert personal jurisdiction over any defendant who learns about the home state of the plaintiff at any time after the defendant engaged in the conduct that formed the basis of plaintiff's claim. To ensure this result, plaintiffs need only assert that the defendant knew their home state and subsequently engaged in some wrongful act.
Obviously, this loosens the due process protection afforded defendants beyond anything allowed by the Supreme Court, which recently reemphasized that personal jurisdiction is not an outmoded legal fiction, but remains a vital part of due process
The majority's decision today unwisely broadens the scope of personal jurisdiction, erroneously rejects the district court's adherence to "traditional practice" in favor of its own "[f]reeform notions" of fairness, id. at 2787 (plurality opinion), and holds that Walden is subject to the jurisdiction of a Nevada court despite his having no contacts whatsoever to that state in connection with plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. Because "those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter," id., I dissent.
The majority's postscript to the opinion amplifies the error of the opinion in two ways. First, it expands the meaning of a "claim" for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Second, it completes the opinion's evisceration of the test for purposeful direction. Together, these changes signal that the traditional due process limitations on a court's authority to assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant no longer pose any meaningful constraint on courts in the Ninth Circuit.
In its most recent changes, the majority continues its search for a theory to save the plaintiffs' complaint. The original opinion's personal jurisdiction analysis relied entirely on the false affidavit "aspect" of plaintiffs' complaint. Maj. op. at 575-76, 576-77, 581. According to the majority, this aspect "amounted to an attempt to defraud" Fiore and Gipson. Maj. op. at 586. Under the pressure of an en banc call, the majority has promoted this false affidavit and fraud "aspect" of the complaint to a full-blown cause of action for the "continued seizure" of plaintiffs' funds "in violation of the Fourth Amendment." Maj. op. at 588. Because this is "arguabl[y]" a cause of action, the majority's amended opinion now asserts that personal jurisdiction may be derived from this newly identified claim. Maj. op. at 576 n. 17.
This is a dramatic and unjustified shift. Until the majority's postscript, no one involved in the litigation — not the plaintiffs, the defendant, or any court — had read the complaint as containing two separate Fourth Amendment claims. Neither plaintiffs' briefs nor their arguments before this court or the district court raised any such theory. Rather, plaintiffs argued that the court had personal jurisdiction over Walden based on the single claim they actually pled: Walden's initial seizure of funds at the airport. Nothing was mentioned about a "continued seizure." And with good reason: no court has ever given an indication that a Bivens claim for a "continued seizure" even exists.
But now, after the appeal, its published opinion, and the en banc proceedings, the majority has changed the rules of the game. Under the majority's new theory, a court can rest its personal jurisdiction holding on any factual allegation in a complaint that a court deems to "arguably" create a cause of action — whether actually argued by the plaintiff or not. A "claim" can be "arguable" even though no court has ever recognized it, and it can be discovered by the court sua sponte at any stage in the litigation, including during en banc proceedings. This unbounded approach will impose enormous costs on litigants and state courts, both of whom must now bear the burden of scouring complaints in order to divine the personal jurisdiction implications of each and every factual allegation.
In addition to expanding what it means to be a "claim" for purposes of personal jurisdiction, the majority's postscript comes close to erasing whatever is left of the Ninth Circuit's test for determining whether that "claim" supports specific personal jurisdiction. See J. McKeown dissent from denial at 569-70; J. O'Scannlain dissent from denial at 564-65.
The Supreme Court has "consistently held" that a state court cannot assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant merely because it is foreseeable that the defendant's actions could cause an injury in that state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Rather, "it is the defendant's actions, not his expectations, that empower a State's courts to subject him to judgment." J. McIntyre Machinery, 131 S.Ct. at 2789. In order to give rise to personal jurisdiction, these actions must be "expressly aimed" at the forum state. Calder, 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482.
Our cases have eroded this requirement. For example, in CE Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., we held that a defendant's actions in New Jersey were expressly aimed at Arizona because "it is reasonable to infer that[defendant] had every reason to know that the effect of the [New Jersey transactions] would resonate in Arizona." 380 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.2004). We went even further in Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, where we held that the defendant law firm "individually targeted" plaintiff's law firm in one forum by publishing plaintiff's copyrighted online marketing material in a different forum. 606 F.3d 1124, 1129-30 (9th Cir.2010). But, as Judge Reinhardt pointed out in dissent, the allegedly infringing material was aimed solely at prospective clients in the defendant's own district, where its lawyers "practiced exclusively." Id. at 1132 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting). Despite the fact that such behavior "is quite the opposite of `directly targeting the
This case deals the coup de grace to any semblance of compliance with Supreme Court precedent. See J. O'Scannlain dissent from denial at 564-65. Under the majority's logic, a court can rely on any allegation that the defendant committed a wrongful act at a time when the defendant should have known that plaintiffs had "strong connections" with a state. Maj. op. at 589-90. The complaint need not allege a wrongful act that is legally cognizable, maj. op. at 576 n. 17, or even that defendant actually knew of plaintiffs' connections to the forum state at the time the defendant committed the allegedly wrongful act, maj. op. at 578. Rather, all that is needed is the allegation that some intentional act by the defendant has a foreseeable effect on a plaintiff in another state. In other words, as Judge McKeown correctly observes in her dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, we have adopted the exact foreseeability framework that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected. See J. McKeown dissent from denial at 569-70.
This impermissible expansion of personal jurisdiction has substantial consequences. For one thing, federal officials working in a transportation hub who are sued by disgruntled travelers can now be forced to litigate in any traveler's home state. A court has personal jurisdiction over such an official so long as (1) it can infer that the official had reason to know the traveler's residence at some point during the litigation, and (2) it can discern some "arguable" cause of action in the traveler's complaint. Under such a "test," a TSA official in Minneapolis who stopped a traveler on a no-fly list can be forced to litigate a claimed equal protection violation in the traveler's home town, whether in Pocatello or Anchorage.
In short, there are no effective limits to the majority's reasoning: all the airport officials who interacted with Fiore and Gipson in Atlanta have potentially subjected themselves to the judicial power of Nevada. This essentially reduces the showing of personal jurisdiction to a pleading exercise and, by doing so, grants state courts in the Ninth Circuit an unconstrained power to "bind strangers to the State." J. McIntyre Machinery, 131 S.Ct. at 2787. This not only flouts common sense, but also ignores the Supreme Court's recent recognition that personal jurisdiction continues to play a vital role in defending basic fairness and due process. See id. at 2786-87.
Judges O'Scannlain, McKeown, and I are not the first to decry this lamentable development in our case law. See, e.g., Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1131-32 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from the majority's application of the express aiming requirement); Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1224-25 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (Ferguson, J., dissenting from the same, joined by O'Scannlain, J., Tashima, J.). But there is even more to lament today, as the majority has done significant further damage to the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" guarded by the long-established rules of personal jurisdiction. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154.
We do not, of course, decide in this personal jurisdiction appeal any merits issues, including whether a Bivens action is available and whether any immunities apply. "Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ("[T]he absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction."); Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 951 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that if a complaint's allegations fail to sufficiently state a claim, such failure is not jurisdictional, but rather cause for dismissal "on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6)").
Walden also urges us to rely on Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 100 S.Ct. 774, 63 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980), which held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), addressing venue in civil actions against officers of the United States acting in their official capacity, could not be read to allow suits against individual officers for money damages to go forward in any federal district in the country because to do so "would place federal officers ... in a very different posture in personal damages suits from that of all other persons." Id. at 544, 100 S.Ct. 774. Walden's argument that finding venue proper in Nevada in this case would similarly result in a precedent that allowed any law enforcement officer working in a transportation hub to be sued in any forum in the country is contradicted by our earlier analysis regarding personal jurisdiction. Moreover, Fiore and Gipson do not maintain, and we are not holding, that law enforcement officers who work at transportation hubs are subject to nationwide venue because of their status. For venue to lie, the terms of § 1391(b)(2) must be met, as they are in this case.
