United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Cheerag Arya (“Arya”). (ECF No. 130).
Arya argues that this case should be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below,
Arya's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
hearing on September 22, 2015, the Court stated on the record
the facts alleged in Plaintiff Jessica Henning
(“Henning”)'s Amended Complaint. (ECF No.
70). The Court incorporates those alleged facts here, and
also incorporates the background set forth in its prior
Order. (ECF No. 137).
13, 2016, Arya filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
130). Henning filed her Response on June 27, 2016. (ECF No.
135). Arya filed his Reply on July 11, 2016. (ECF No. 136).On
July 26, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting in part
and denying in part the prior Motion to Dismiss, and granting
in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Strike.
(ECF No. 137). On August 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing on
the instant Motion to Dismiss, and took the matter under
submission. (ECF No. 139).
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal
jurisdiction. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211
(9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Where, as here, the Court
resolves a motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary
hearing, a plaintiff must “make a prima facie
showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to
dismiss.” Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873
F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). To make
a prima facie showing, the plaintiff “need
only demonstrate facts that if true would support
jurisdiction.” Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d
1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). When evaluating the
plaintiff's prima facie showing, “[a]ll
uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are deemed true,
and factual disputes are to be resolved in favor of the
non-moving party.” Morrill, 873 F.3d at 1141.
courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds
of their jurisdiction over persons.” Walden v.
Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014); see also Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A)). Nevada permits its courts to
exercise jurisdiction to the same extent as the Constitution.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065. Therefore, this Court need
only consider the constitutional principles of due process.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., San
Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017). This due
process determination has two components: (1) whether the
defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the forum
state to render it subject to the forum's jurisdiction;
and (2) whether the assertion of jurisdiction complies with
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1121. The
Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test for the
“substantial connection” or minimum contacts
required for personal jurisdiction: (1) the relationship
between defendant and the forum must arise out of contacts
the defendant himself creates, and (2) defendant must have
contacts with the forum state and not merely with persons
residing in the forum state. Id. at 1122.
are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general and
specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S.Ct.
at 1779-80. General jurisdiction is appropriate in the one
location where an individual defendant has her domicile; any
claim may be heard against a defendant in the place where she
is subject to general jurisdiction. Id. at 1780
(citations omitted). Alternatively, a court may find specific
jurisdiction where the subject of a lawsuit is related to a
defendant's in-state contacts with the forum.
Id. (citations omitted).
Forum Non Conveniens
district court may “decline to exercise jurisdiction in
a case where litigation in a foreign forum would be more
convenient for the parties.” Lueck v. Sundstrand
Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001). “A
forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” Id. at
moving to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens
must “show two things: (1) the existence of an adequate
alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of private and
public interest factors favors dismissal.” Boston
Telecomm. Grp. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201, 1206 (9th Cir.
2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a
pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In ruling on a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, “[a]ll
well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint
are accepted as true and are construed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.” Faulkner v. ADT
Security Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir.
2013). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,
” meaning that the court can reasonably infer
“that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS FOR JURISDICTION
Court has reviewed the record in this case and makes the
following factual findings solely for the purpose of the
Arya's 2012 Introduction to Henning
is a resident of Clark County, Nevada. Arya is a resident of
the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). Arya became a
client of Selective Search, a matchmaking service, in Summer
2012, for the purpose of finding a romantic partner. That
summer, Arya visited the Selective Search offices in Chicago,
Illinois in person, and described to the client
representative that his ideal partner was “a young,
career-minded woman that would be open to relocate.”
After Arya returned to his residence, he signed a contract
with Selective Search and began to receive profiles of
potential partners. Selective Search sent Arya an email with
Henning's profile, which showed that Henning was a
resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. After Selective Search
confirmed that Henning was willing to relocate, Arya
expressed interest in meeting Henning, and Selective Search
provided Arya with Henning's phone number and email
2012 Communications and Arya's 2013 Visit to
and Arya first spoke on the telephone on or about November
12, 2012. Henning informed Arya that she was a resident of
the State of Nevada and located in Las Vegas at the time. The
parties continued to communicate by telephone, text message,
and email from November 12, 2012 through January 24, 2013.
about January 24, 2013, Arya traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada
for the purpose of meeting Henning. The parties met for
dinner, which lasted approximately one hour. On or about
January 25, 2013, Henning and Arya met for dinner again in
Las Vegas, Nevada. After Arya was escorted from the property
by security, Henning paid the dinner bill and took a taxi cab
following morning, Arya contacted Henning by telephone, while
Arya was still in Las Vegas. Arya apologized for his conduct
the prior evening. Henning expressed her concern regarding
Arya's conduct. Arya told Henning he was nervous and that
was the basis for his excessive alcohol consumption on the
previous night. He also assured Henning that he did not have
an alcohol abuse problem.
relied upon those representations and agreed to meet with
Arya again that evening. The parties met for dinner at a Las
Vegas hotel. Arya presented Henning with a Cartier watch and
three Chanel handbags, stating that the items were belated
Christmas gifts and an early birthday gift.
Enticements to Leave Nevada
about January 27, 2013, Arya departed Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prior to his departure Arya invited Plaintiff to travel to
Switzerland, Belgium, and Dubai to visit Arya during races in
which his Ferrari team was competing. On or about January 30,
2013, Arya directed an email to Henning while she was in Las
Vegas, Nevada, in which he invited Henning on a trip to
about February 6, 2013, Arya emailed Henning while she was in
Las Vegas, Nevada, in which he informed Henning that he would
be purchasing her a Bentley Continental Wl2 automobile and a
Bentley Flying Spur automobile.
about February 7, 2013, Arya directed an email to Henning
while she was in in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which he informed
Henning that he would be purchasing for Henning a Ferrari in
Switzerland. The content of the email allegedly states
“the Swiss one will be for you.” On or about
February 23, 2013, Henning flew to Switzerland at Arya's
request. Arya purchased the airline tickets and sent them to
Henning while she was in Las Vegas, Nevada. While the parties
were in Switzerland, Arya gave Henning several gifts valued
in total at $345, 000, including:
• Diamond earrings
• A Rolex watch
• A Frank Muller watch
• An Hermes watch
about March 1, 2013, while Henning and Arya were still in
Switzerland, Arya consumed alcohol in excess, contrary to his
prior representations. He became verbally abusive toward
Henning. Henning stated she would cut the trip short and book
travel back to Las Vegas, Nevada, for the next day. Arya
insisted that the four gifts he gave to Henning be given back
to him. Henning, feeling threatened, gave the gifts back to
Arya. Henning returned to Las Vegas, Nevada the next day.
about March 6, 2013, Arya emailed Plaintiff while she was in
Las Vegas, requesting to speak by telephone. Henning agreed.
During the phone call, Arya apologized for his earlier
conduct, apologized for taking Henning's property, and
stated that he “wanted to make it up” to Henning.
about April 9, 2013, Arya had a Frank Muller watch shipped to
Henning in Las Vegas, Nevada, to replace the watch Arya had
previously taken from Henning. Arya made the travel
arrangements for Henning to meet him in Antwerp, Belguim and
directed those arrangements to Henning in Las Vegas, Nevada.
On or about April 15, 2013, at Arya's request, Henning
flew to Antwerp.
April 15, 2013, Arya presented Henning with a 7.52 carat
yellow diamond “commitment ring.” Arya told
Henning that an official 20 carat engagement ring would be
presented to her in an Indian customary ceremony. Arya
represented that ...