Martifer-Silverado Fund I, LLC v. Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd

Background

The defendants, Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Talesun Solar Technology Co., Ltd., moved for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. They sought to challenge the court’s September 11, 2020 order denying their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants argued that the court had improperly applied the “purposeful availment” test instead of the “purposeful direction” test in analyzing personal jurisdiction. The court explained that its earlier order referred to both tests and focused largely on evidence of the defendants’ actions outside the forum state that were directed at the forum. The court also said that any reference to “purposeful availment” reflected language and arguments used in the parties’ briefing.

The defendants also argued that no individual fact was enough to establish personal jurisdiction and repeated arguments that Talesun Solar USA Ltd. was a necessary party. The court said it had considered the evidence as a whole rather than relying on one fact or jurisdictional theory. It further stated that the defendants were repeating arguments from their earlier briefing and that the cited decisions did not include decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or another court in the district.

Ruling

The court found that the defendants had not satisfied Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(3). It concluded that no material change in law or fact had occurred, that it had not failed to consider the earlier arguments and facts, and that reframing the arguments did not justify reconsideration. The court denied the defendants’ motion and terminated Docket Number 53.