Thalasila v. Lo

Background

Pravin Chander Thalasila sued Wayne Lo, doing business as ESREALTIME, seeking recognition of a foreign money judgment that Thalasila obtained in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. Lo was served on February 6, 2024, but did not appear. The Clerk entered default against him on February 9, 2024.

Thalasila moved for default judgment. Magistrate Judge Cousins requested supplemental briefing on whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Lo and then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court adopted that recommendation in an earlier order, after which Thalasila filed objections and additional evidence. The court stayed the earlier order while reviewing those objections.

Personal Jurisdiction

Thalasila did not argue that Lo was subject to general personal jurisdiction in California. The court therefore considered specific personal jurisdiction, which depends on whether the defendant purposefully engaged with the forum, whether the claim arose from or related to those contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

Thalasila identified several additional facts: Lo allegedly had a United States Social Security number, had previously lived in California, had banking relationships with United States financial institutions, maintained brokerage accounts with companies based in California and other states, used those brokerages for futures trading, received Thalasila’s California contact information, and received funds from Thalasila’s California bank account.

The court found that the Social Security number and banking relationships were not specific to California. It found that Lo’s prior residence in California did not appear related to Thalasila’s alleged injury. The facts about Thalasila’s contact information and California bank account showed the relationship between the parties but were not enough because the plaintiff could not be the only connection between the defendant and California.

The court considered the brokerage-account allegations potentially more helpful but found that Thalasila had not explained their significance. The submission did not establish that an account was held in California, that it gave Lo the benefits and protections of California law, or that it was connected to Lo’s alleged loss of Thalasila’s funds. The court stated that Thalasila might be able to allege enough facts to establish specific personal jurisdiction by providing more information about Lo’s California contacts, including actions on Lo’s website directed at California residents, details about any California-based brokerage accounts and their benefits, and how those accounts related to the alleged misuse of Thalasila’s funds.

Disposition

The court denied Thalasila’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It again denied the motion for default judgment. The order amended and superseded the earlier order because it did not dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, the court granted Thalasila leave to file a renewed motion for default judgment and supporting evidence within 10 days of the order’s entry. Thalasila was also ordered to serve a copy of the order on Lo.