Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-05229
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Corallo v. NSO Group, Judge Seeborg granted further briefing on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, setting page limits and deadlines.
Francesco Corallo, NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited, and the court's handling of the pending motions were affected by the order permitting additional briefing.
What happened
In Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, the court was considering whether NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited were subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California and, if so, whether the claims should be dismissed because another forum would be more appropriate.
NSO pointed to another district court decision dismissing similar claims under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Francesco Corallo asked for permission to explain why that decision should not apply in his case.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the request for further briefing. Corallo may file a supplemental brief of up to eight pages by April 2, 2024, and NSO may respond with a brief of up to eight pages by April 9, 2024. The order did not decide the jurisdiction or forum non conveniens issues.
The detailed version
- Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 3:22-cv-05229
- Richard Seeborg
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
The case raised threshold issues about whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction—legal power over the defendants—over NSO Group Technologies Limited and its affiliate, Q Cyber Technologies Limited. The court also was considering whether the claims against NSO should be dismissed under forum non conveniens, a doctrine that allows a court to decline a case when another forum is more appropriate.
The court had allowed limited discovery concerning jurisdiction and had permitted additional briefing. Other cases in the district had addressed jurisdiction and forum non conveniens issues involving NSO and similar claims.
Request for Further Briefing
NSO submitted a statement identifying a recent district court decision that dismissed similar claims against NSO under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Francesco Corallo asked for permission to file a brief explaining why that decision did not support dismissal in this case. The court noted that the cited decision involved the same defendants and similar facts, and that it distinguished another decision that reached the result Corallo argued should apply here.
Ruling
The court granted Corallo's request for further briefing. It stated that the cited decision was not controlling authority but concluded that Corallo should have an opportunity to address it under the circumstances.
Corallo may file a supplemental brief of no more than eight pages by April 2, 2024. NSO may file a response of no more than eight pages by April 9, 2024. The court stated that no further requests for briefing would be considered unless extraordinary circumstances supported a showing of good cause.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed briefing only. It did not decide whether the court had personal jurisdiction over NSO, whether forum non conveniens required dismissal, or the merits of Corallo's claims. The opinion also noted that defendant Apple had a pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which had been held pending resolution of NSO's motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.