Cohodes v. MiMedx Group, Inc.

Background

Marc Cohodes alleges that Daniel Guy hired Derrick Snowdy, described in the opinion as a private investigator, to investigate or surveil Cohodes in California. Cohodes also alleges that MiMedx Group, Inc. hired Snowdy for similar purposes in connection with Cohodes’s investigation of that company. Cohodes asserts claims against Guy and Snowdy under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the federal Wiretap Act, as well as claims for defamation and common-law invasion of privacy.

Guy states that he is a Canadian citizen who lives in Bermuda and has no ties to California. He moved to dismiss the claims against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cohodes alleges that the court has jurisdiction because Snowdy acted as Guy’s agent and at Guy’s direction.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that Cohodes had to make a preliminary showing that specific personal jurisdiction exists over Guy. For tort claims, that generally requires showing that Guy purposefully directed activities toward California, that the claims arise from or relate to those activities, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable. Cohodes had to establish jurisdiction for each claim, although related claims may sometimes fall within the court’s jurisdiction if they arise from the same core facts.

The court discussed agency, which requires an agent to act for a principal and be subject to the principal’s control. The court said that an agent’s California contacts may be attributed to the principal for personal-jurisdiction purposes. It found Cohodes’s complaint relatively thin on this issue, including because the allegation that Snowdy acted at Guy’s direction as Guy’s agent or employee was conclusory.

Cohodes submitted communications involving Guy that discussed Snowdy and his investigation. Some messages referred to “my guy,” which the context indicated meant Snowdy, and other messages referred to Guy’s inability to “control” Snowdy. Guy disputed Cohodes’s characterization of these materials. The court concluded that the conflicting record warranted focused jurisdictional discovery rather than an immediate ruling on the jurisdiction question.

Ruling

The court ordered limited jurisdictional discovery targeted at the agency-related facts. The discovery was required to be completed by February 27, 2023. Afterward, Cohodes was directed to file an amended complaint stating the facts on which he would rely to establish specific jurisdiction over Guy, and that complaint was due by March 13, 2023. Guy could renew his motion to dismiss as warranted by the developments.

The court denied Guy’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after discovery. It deferred deciding whether it could exercise specific jurisdiction over Cohodes’s defamation claim, which was not based on Snowdy’s California contacts, and whether related jurisdiction could apply to the other three claims. The supplied opinion text does not clearly identify the judge’s name in the signature.