Case Name: SetNet Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al.
Case No.: 1-14-CV-260608

Currently before the Court are the motions of defendants Société Francaise du Radiotéléphone (“SFR”) and Vivendi S.A. (“Vivendi”) to quash service of the summons and complaint by plaintiff SetNet Corporation (“SetNet”), on the grounds that they have not had sufficient contact with California to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them in this action and they were not properly served with the summons and complaint.

SFR’s motion to quash is GRANTED. SFR is a French telecommunications company that provides services pursuant to French Telecommunication Licenses for businesses operating only in France. (Decl. of Elisabeth Duval, ¶ ii.) SetNet contends that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over SFR because it purposefully availed itself of California by soliciting and receiving software maintenance services from SetNet. However, the allegations of SetNet’s complaint suggest that this activity took place in France, via a French intermediary (“HP France”). The only evidence offered by SetNet in support of its opposition to SFR’s motion to quash are a few pieces of correspondence and purchase orders sent from SFR to SetNet’s headquarters in Burlingame, California in 2005 and 2006, along with the assertion of SetNet’s CEO that SetNet engineers “spoke on the phone and corresponded frequently via e-mail with SFR engineers.” (Decl. of Nicolas Fodor, ¶ 3.)

The mere facts that SFR sent mail to SetNet in California and SetNet performed some services for SFR’s benefit from California do not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction standing alone. (See Belmont Industries, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Viking Drafting Inc.) (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 281, 288 [no personal jurisdiction over defendant where contract was executed in Pennsylvania for services relating to a job to be performed there, although “it was undoubtedly contemplated that [plaintiff] would perform the services in California”]; McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co. (9th Cir. 1988) 845 F.2d 802, 816 [unilateral activity by plaintiffs insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over defendant where no authorized agents of defendant were alleged to have performed or executed any portion of the contract in California, even where plaintiffs stated they performed 90% of their activities in the Bay Area and contract was executed and terminated by international mail]; cf. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc. (1977) 557 F.2d 1280, 1287-1288 [specific personal jurisdiction proper where defendant participated in contract negotiations in California and sent employees to California to facilitate plaintiff’s completion of the contract].)

Vivendi’s motion to quash is also GRANTED. Vivendi is a French holding company that has made equity investments in California corporations. (Bushnell Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 6.) SRF is a subsidiary of Vivendi. (Id. at ¶ 4.) SetNet contends that Vivendi is subject to general personal jurisdiction in California because it has placed products and services into the stream of commerce, via its United States subsidiaries, with the expectation that they would be purchased by Californians. (Opp. at p. 3.) As urged by Vivendi, “neither ownership nor control of a subsidiary corporation by a foreign parent corporation, without more, subjects the parent to the jurisdiction of the state where the subsidiary does business.” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Sonora Union High School District) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540.) The case cited by SetNet in support of the proposition that isolated or sporadic sales in California are sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction in fact held that general personal jurisdiction was not proper, and instead found that specific personal jurisdiction was established based on other California contacts. (See As You Sow v. Crawford Laboratories, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1859.) More importantly, here, SetNet has failed to offer any evidence of direct contacts by Vivendi with California, and it fails to argue or allege any facts in support of the notion that Vivendi should be required to defend this lawsuit in California due to its relationship with subsidiaries that appear to have no involvement with the events giving rise to this action. Consequently, SetNet fails to satisfy its burden in opposing Vivendi’s motion to quash.

Nevertheless, with respect to Vivendi’s motion only, SetNet requests authorization to conduct jurisdictional discovery. If a plaintiff fails to satisfy its burden in opposing a motion to quash, but the court is persuaded that evidence of jurisdictional facts may exist, the court has discretion to continue the hearing on the motion to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (See Goehring v. Super. Ct., supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 911.) Here, however, there is no indication that further discovery will lead to the production of evidence establishing jurisdiction, given that SetNet does not even identify a theory pursuant to which Vivendi would be subject to general personal jurisdiction via one of its United States subsidiaries. Consequently, SetNet’s request for jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. (See Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 487 [finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for jurisdictional discovery where court “could reasonably conclude further discovery would not likely lead to production of evidence establishing jurisdiction”].)

The Court will prepare the order. The parties are reminded of the case management conference scheduled for June 17, 2014 at 1:30 P.M.