Case Name: Chandramohan Ammini, et al. v. Dana Ichinotsubo, et al.

Case No.: 1-10-CV-167069

Currently before the Court is the motion of defendant Dory Ichinotsubo (“Ms. Ichinotsubo”) to quash service of summons on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1). This matter was continued from December 4, 2014, to allow Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery as to Ms. Ichinotsubo. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition on February 10, 2015, providing the Court with further evidence in support of their position. Ms. Ichinotsubo filed a supplemental reply on February 19, 2015.

“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super. Ct., (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 978.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs presented sufficient competent evidence demonstrating that Ms. Ichinotsubo purposefully availed herself of the benefits and protections of the state of California by initiating multiple and ongoing contacts with Antara and its employees to promote the transaction of business with the forum state. (See Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super. Ct., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 978-979 [“Purposeful availment occurs where a nonresident defendant purposefully directs its activities at residents of the forum, purposefully derives benefit from its activities in the forum, creates a substantial connection with the forum, deliberately has engaged in significant activities within the forum, or has created continuing obligations between itself and residents of the forum.”] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Goehring v. Super. Ct. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 907 [“‘Purposeful availment’ requires that the defendant have performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state”].) Specifically, Ms. Ichinotsubo engaged in significant contacts with the forum state, such as: attending interviews for Antara’s chief operating officer in Palo Alto, California (see Jokhadze Dec., ¶ 3); arranging for corporate housing in California for Antara’s employees based in Mountain View, California and traveling to California to accompany Antara employees on their housing search (see Ogi Supp. Dec., ¶¶ 5-6); emailing and/or calling Antara’s Controller, who was based in Mountain View, California, at least once or twice per week regarding Antara’s funding requests, wire transfers between Antara’s bank accounts, payment of Antara’s rent, and other issues related to Antara’s finances (see Ogi Supp. Dec., ¶¶ 7-11); acting as one of the direct supervisors for Antara’s California-based Controller (see Ogi Supp. Dec., ¶ 13); visiting Antara’s offices in Mountain View, California to put together due diligence documents for a pending deal between Antara and a company called Kinetics (see Jokhadze Dec., ¶ 5; see also Ogi Supp. Dec., ¶ 19); and traveling to California on multiple occasions to attend dinners with Antara employees and the Antara Christmas party. (See Ogi Supp. Dec., ¶¶ 15-16.) In addition, Ms. Ichinotsubo admits that she “volunteer[ed] time on behalf of [Antara]” (see Ichinotsubo Dec., ¶ 6) and received checks from Antara. (See Ichinotsubo Dec., ¶ 8.) These are not passive or sporadic contacts as Ms. Ichinotsubo repeatedly reached out to the forum state by travelling there on business with Antrara and emailing and calling Antara’s Controller on a weekly basis regarding Antara’s finances. Although Ms. Ichinotsubo declares she was not employed by Antara and indicates in her responses to special interrogatories that her contacts with Antara were only incidental to her work for Eurus Japan, her responses to the special interrogatories also indicate that she was employed (and presumably paid) by Eurus Japan and, thus, Ms. Ichinotsubo benefited from her activity directed at California residents. (See De Los Reyes Dec., Ex. A, pp. 4-13.)

The Court also finds that there is a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the claims alleged in the third amended complaint (“TAC”) because the claims for unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962, subdivisions (c) and (d) asserted against Ms. Ichinotsubo arise out of her work with the Eurus entities and Antara and her alleged control over Antara’s finances and the misappropriation of Antara’s funds. (See TAC, ¶¶ 22, 33(d) and (e), 45, 70(l) and (m); see also Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super. Ct., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 979 [“A controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s forum contacts, so as to satisfy the second requirement for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, if there is a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim. The forum contacts need not be the proximate cause or ‘but for’ cause of the alleged injuries. The forum contacts also need not be ‘substantively related’ to the cause of action, meaning those contacts need not establish or support an element of the cause of action. … Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident’s forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate.’ Accordingly, in evaluating the quality and nature of the defendant’s forum contacts, we consider not only the conduct directly affecting the plaintiff, but also the broader course of conduct which it is a part.”] [internal citations omitted].)

Where a defendant who purposefully directed her activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, she must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable. (See Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super. Ct., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at pp. 979- 980.) Based on the evidence presented, Ms. Ichinotsubo has not presented a compelling case and the Court finds that the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and consistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.