Adam v. Barone
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-00761
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 17
In Adam v. Barone, Judge Chen transferred claims against most defendants to New Jersey and dismissed claims against SFLG and Ellis for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Cindy Adam’s lawsuit was transferred to New Jersey as to most defendants. The claims against SFLG Inc. and Kurt Ellis were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Adam v. Barone, Cindy Adam alleged that the defendants advertised beauty products as free samples but later charged consumers for subscriptions. She sued under several consumer-protection laws and other legal theories in California.
The defendants asked the court to move the case to New Jersey or dismiss it. They argued that New Jersey had the witnesses and evidence and was the only forum with jurisdiction over all defendants. Adam opposed the transfer and argued that New Jersey could not exercise jurisdiction over SFLG or Kurt Ellis.
Judge Chen ruled that the case could proceed in New Jersey against most defendants, so the transfer motion was granted in part as to those defendants. The transfer motion was denied as to SFLG and Ellis, but their claims were dismissed because California lacked personal jurisdiction over them; Adam’s request for jurisdictional discovery was also denied.
The detailed version
- Adam v. Barone · No. 3:20-cv-00761
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
Cindy Adam alleged that defendants operated a scheme involving beauty products advertised as free samples. According to the complaint, she purchased products after viewing an advertisement on Snapchat, was later charged approximately $92.94 for a recurring subscription, and received products in California. She alleged that the subscription terms were hidden and that defendants used websites and merchant accounts to make the charges appear legitimate during bank investigations.
Adam sued Frank V. Barone, Kirill Chumenko, Green Pogo LLC (Delaware), Green Pogo LLC (New Jersey), Fortera Nutra Solutions LLC, Improved Nutraceuticals LLC, Natural Beauty Line LLC., Vegan Beauty LLC, Advanced Beauty LLC, Kurt Ellis, and SFLG Inc. Her claims included alleged violations of California consumer-protection laws, the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy.
Motion to Transfer Venue
The defendants moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or alternatively to dismiss it. They argued that most defendants, witnesses, and evidence were in New Jersey and that New Jersey was the only forum where all defendants could be subject to personal jurisdiction. Adam opposed transfer, arguing in part that New Jersey could not exercise personal jurisdiction over SFLG and Ellis when the lawsuit was filed.
The court concluded that Adam could not have brought the entire lawsuit in New Jersey because the defendants had not shown that New Jersey had general personal jurisdiction over SFLG and Ellis. Their later consent to jurisdiction did not control because the relevant question was whether the case could have been brought there when it was filed.
The court nevertheless determined that it could sever the claims against defendants subject to jurisdiction in New Jersey and transfer those claims. After weighing convenience and fairness, the court found that the factors favored New Jersey. The evidence and witnesses were primarily there, and transferring the claims would allow the defendants to be handled together without first resolving the jurisdictional disputes in California.
The court therefore GRANTED in part the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey as to Frank V. Barone, Kirill Chumenko, Green Pogo LLC (Delaware), Green Pogo LLC (New Jersey), Natural Beauty Line LLC., Vegan Beauty LLC, Improved Nutraceuticals LLC, Fortera Nutra Solutions LLC, and Advanced Beauty LLC. SFLG and Ellis were severed, and the motion to transfer as to them was DENIED.
Personal Jurisdiction Over SFLG and Ellis
The court then considered whether California had specific personal jurisdiction over SFLG and Ellis. Adam argued that they purposefully directed activities toward California by shipping products to California residents and handling complaints and returns.
The court found that Adam adequately alleged intentional acts, but she did not make the required initial showing that SFLG and Ellis expressly aimed their conduct at California. The court reasoned that knowing Adam’s ZIP code and shipping products to her was not enough, without additional facts showing that the defendants specifically directed their activities at California or targeted California residents. The complaint identified only one California transaction involving these defendants and did not allege that they conducted extensive or repeated business in California.
The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Ellis and SFLG for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also DENIED Adam’s request for jurisdictional discovery because she did not clearly identify what discovery was needed or explain how it would likely establish jurisdiction.
Other Rulings and Disposition
The defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and their motion to stay were DENIED as moot. The clerk was instructed to enter judgment and close the case. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.