Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Fred Martin Motor Co.

59 Pages·2003·0.14 MB·English

No. 02-56937
In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
vs.
Fred Martin Motor Co.,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
On Appeal From A Judgment Of The United States District Court
Central District Of California, Western Division
No. CV-02-06354-FMC-(SHSx)
The Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper
James C. Martin (Cal. Bar 83719) Martin D. Singer (Cal. Bar 78166)
Denise M. Howell (Cal. Bar 149731) Charles J. Harder (Cal. Bar 184593)
Benjamin G. Shatz (Cal. Bar 160229) LAVELY & SINGER
REED SMITH CROSBY HEAFEY LLP Professional Corporation
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Appellant
Arnold Schwarzenegger
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND STANDARD OF
REVIEW.............................................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL....................................2
III. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT................................................3
IV. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................5
A. Fred Martin Motor Company Misappropriates Mr.
Schwarzenegger’s Likeness For Commercial Purposes In
Print Advertisements Published In Ohio...............................5
B. Mr. Schwarzenegger Sues Fred Martin Motor Co. In
California For Misappropriating His Name And Likeness.........7
C. When FMMC Moves To Dismiss The Action On Personal
Jurisdiction Grounds, Mr. Schwarzenegger Responds With
Evidence Detailing FMMC’s Extensive California Contacts
And Knowledge Of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s Residence And
Work Within The Forum .................................................8
D. The District Court Dismisses The Action Against FMMC
On Personal Jurisdiction Grounds And Mr. Schwarzenegger
Appeals.....................................................................11
V. ARGUMENT.....................................................................12
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
A. The District Court Erred In Ruling That FMMC Is Beyond
The General Or Specific Jurisdiction Of A California
Forum ......................................................................12
B. FMMC’s Extensive And Habitual Business Transactions In
California Are Critical To Its Ability To Market And Sell
Automobiles And, Taken As A Whole, Establish General
Jurisdiction ................................................................17
1. FMMC’s Contacts With California Are So Extensive
As To Give It A “Presence” In The State For
Jurisdictional Purposes..........................................19
2. FMMC’s Practice Of Purchasing Considerable
Inventory From California To Sustain Its Operations,
When Combined With Its Other Forum Contacts,
Likewise Supports The Exercise Of General
Jurisdiction ........................................................22
C. By Intentionally Directing Its Wrongful Conduct At A
Forum Resident, FMMC Subjected Itself To The Specific
Jurisdiction Of A California Forum ..................................29
1. FMMC Purposefully Availed Itself Of The Privileges
Of The Forum By Committing An Intentional Tort
That FMMC Knew Or Should Have Known Would
Injure A California Resident...................................30
2. Mr. Schwarzenegger’s Claims Arise Out Of Or
Result From FMMC’s Forum Related Activities..........36
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
3. The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction Over FMMC
Is Reasonable And Consistent With Important
Policies Balancing State And Individual Interests..........39
VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................45
VII. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .....................................47
VIII. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................48
.
- iii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Navigation Co., Inc.,
1 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1993) ...........................................................17
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court,
480 U.S. 102 (1978) ..............................................................14, 39
Ballard v. Savage,
65 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................39, 42
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) ..................................................passim
Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court,
71 Cal. 2d 893 (1969) .................................................................13
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...............................................23, 39, 40, 41, 45
Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...............................................30, 31, 32, 33, 35
California Software, Inc. v. Reliability Research,
631 F. Supp. 1356 (C.D. Cal. 1986) ...........................16, 31, 32, 34, 44
Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara,
183 F.3d 151 (2nd Cir. 1999) .......................................................16
Cubbage v. Merchant,
744 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................44
Cybersell Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.,
130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................28
Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs., Inc.,
557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ........................................12, 13, 16, 22
Dorsey v. American Golf Corp.,
98 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Mich. 2000) ............................................18
- iv -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Forsyth v. Overmyer,
576 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1978) ........................................................15
Freeman v. Hittle,
747 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1984) .........................................................1
Glencore Grain Rotterdam, B.V. v. Shivanth Rai Harnarain Co.,
284 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................passim
GTFM, Inc. v. International Basic Source, Inc.,
2002 WL 31050840, 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)...........................................25
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
466 U.S. 408 (1984) ..............................................................passim
Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach,
99 Cal. App. 4th 576 (2002) .........................................................15
International Shoe v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945) .........................................................12, 13, 15
Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc.,
918 F.2d 1039 (2nd Cir. 1990) ......................................................16
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co.,
355 U.S. 220 (1957) ...................................................................16
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co v. Robertson-Ceco Corp.,
84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) ..........................................................18
Panavision Int'l v. Toeppen,
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) ...............................................2, 37, 39
Pavlovich v. Superior Court,
29 Cal. 4th 262 (2003) ................................................................31
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.,
342 U.S. 437 (1950) ....................................................13, 21, 22, 26
- v -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Provident National Bank v. California Federal Savings & Loan,
819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1987) ..........................................18, 22, 26, 27
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,
284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................passim
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.,
260 U.S. 516 (1923) .............................................................23, 24
Simpson v. Quality Oil Company, Inc.,
723 F. Supp. 382 (S.D. Ind. 1989) .................................................25
Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc.,
854 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................passim
T.H. Davies & Co. v. Republic of Marshall Islands,
174 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 1998) ..............................................24, 25, 27
Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co.,
66 Cal. 2d 738 (1967) ............................................................14, 43
Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A.,
318 F.3d 446, 2003 WL 175322 (3rd Cir. 2003) ................................28
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.,
14 Cal. 4th 434 (1996) .................................................13, 18, 38, 41
World Gym Licensing, Ltd. v. Fitness World, Inc.,
47 F. Supp. 2d 614 (D. Md. 1999) ...................................................5
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) ...............................................28
- vi -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
STATUTES
California
Cal. Civ. Code § 410.10 ..................................................................12
Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ................................................................... 5, 7
Federal
28 U.S.C. § 1332 .............................................................................1
28 U.S.C. § 1441 .............................................................................1
Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(a)(7)(C) ..........................................................48
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ...................................................................17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ........................................................................1
- vii -
I.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Jurisdiction And Timely Appeal. Arnold Schwarzenegger
appeals the Judgment dismissing defendant Fred Martin Motor Company,
entered for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Order granting Fred
Martin Motor Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
(ER II:943; III:662) The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
sections 1332 and 1441 (district court jurisdiction over actions removed from
state court on diversity of citizenship grounds) and this Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. sections 1291 and 1294(1) (jurisdiction over district court
judgments).
The appeal was initiated before entry of a judgment of dismissal.
Thereafter, at Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request, on December 20, 2002 the
district court entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The entry of judgment timely perfected this appeal. See
Freeman v. Hittle, 747 F.2d 1299, 1300-01 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 54(b)
judgment applies retroactively to previously filed notice of appeal); see also
FRAP 4(a)(2).
Standard Of Review. A district court’s determination that
personal jurisdiction does not exist is a question of law reviewed de novo. Rio
Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002).
Mr. Schwarzenegger bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, but need
- 1 -
only make a prima facie showing to sustain that burden. Id. In determining
whether Mr. Schwarzenegger has met this burden, the allegations in his
complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in
the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in his favor. Id. Any factual findings
by the district court are reviewed for clear error. Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen,
141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998).
II.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL
Did the district court err in finding no prima facie case of general
personal jurisdiction in California over Fred Martin Motor Company, where
the record establishes substantial, ongoing, business-critical purchases from
parties within the state, in addition to various other commercial contacts?
Did the district court err in finding no prima facie case of specific
personal jurisdiction in California over Fred Martin Motor Company, where
the company purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the forum, engaged
in forum related activities that gave rise to these claims, and reasonably is
susceptible to the forum’s jurisdiction?
- 2 -