CZ Services, Inc. v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CZ SERVICES, INC., d/b/a CAREZONE Case No. 3:19-cv-04453-JD PHARMACY and CAREZONE 8 PHARMACY LLC, Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PERSONAL 9 JURISDICTION v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 38 11 ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., PREMERA BLUE CROSS, and 12 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS CITY, 13 Defendants. 14 15 This order resolves defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of specific personal 16 jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 35 and 38. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The Court 17 declines to reach defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6) until personal jurisdiction is 18 adequately established. See Sinochem Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Malay Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 19 430-31 (2007). 20 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. The Court has detailed the standards 21 governing the pleading of personal jurisdiction in several prior decisions. See, e.g., Sharpe v. 22 Puritan’s Pride, Inc., No. 16-cv-06717-JD, 2019 WL 188658 at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019); 23 Zithromia Ltd. v. Gazeus Negocios De Internet SA., No. 3:17-cv-06475-JD, 2018 WL 6340875 at 24 *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018). The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction, and 25 so plaintiffs had the burden of making a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction in this Court 26 over defendants. Zithromia, 2018 WL 6340875 at *2. 27 The complaint does not connect defendants to California or this District in a meaningful 1 of defendants’ presence or activity within the state. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 n.6, 2 284 (2014); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). Plaintiffs 3 acknowledge that none of the defendants are incorporated in California or have a principal place 4 || of business here. See Dkt. No. 1 J 15-17. Plaintiffs’ allegations of defendants’ general business 5 || dealings within California do not establish an affiliation between the forum and the underlying 6 || controversy sufficient to exercise specific jurisdiction. See Zithromia, 2018 WL 6340875 at *2. 7 The allegations in the complaint that defendants were “principals” and non-party ESI was their 8 agent, see Dkt. No. 1 4] 29-33, are entirely conclusory, and fail to state facts sufficient to plausibly 9 || allege an agency relationship for jurisdictional purposes. Plaintiffs’ use of the disclaimer “‘on 10 || information and belief” highlights this deficiency. 11 Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint with respect to the issue of specific personal 12 || jurisdiction by October 12, 2020. Failure to amend by that date may result in dismissal under Rule 5 13 41(b). Alternatively, plaintiffs may request a transfer of the case to an appropriate judicial district. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: September 16, 2020 16 8 JAMES JPONATO. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28