Zithromia Limited v. Gazeus Negocios De Internet SA

Background

Zithromia filed an amended complaint after the court ordered discovery concerning whether it had specific personal jurisdiction over Gazeus in the Northern District of California. Zithromia’s claim involved an allegedly improper infringement notice under § 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Its main theory was that Gazeus caused Apple to remove Zithromia’s games from Apple’s platform in response to an arbitration award in Brazil.

The jurisdictional discovery focused on Gazeus and non-party Apple. Zithromia had more than 90 days to pursue that discovery. The opinion says Zithromia did not produce a document or fact from the discovery showing a connection between its claims against Gazeus and Gazeus’s conduct in California. Instead, it relied on statements made on information and belief and other unsupported speculation.

Analysis

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority over a defendant. Because Gazeus challenged jurisdiction, Zithromia had to support jurisdiction with facts showing a connection between its claims and Gazeus’s conduct in the forum. The court concluded that Zithromia had not done so. It also rejected reliance on Gazeus’s general commercial conduct in California and on the foreseeability of alleged harm in California.

Ruling

The court granted Gazeus’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and found that further leave to amend was not warranted because Zithromia had already amended its complaint and had been given an opportunity for jurisdictional discovery. The order did not reach the merits of Zithromia’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim.