Lindblad v. Linde AG

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06179
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT LINDBLAD, Case No. 23-cv-06179-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND INSUFFICIENT 10 LINDE AG, et al., SERVICE OF PROCESS 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 6

12 13 Plaintiff Robert Lindblad, who represents himself, sues three Defendants for seven causes 14 of action related to Plaintiff’s alleged ownership rights to Linde AG. (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶¶ 26-53.)1 15 Defendants move to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of 16 process. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and a motion to retain jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 17 17, 18.) After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court GRANTS the 18 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because no jurisdiction exists, the Court need 19 not reach the issue of service of process. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Linde GmbH (“Linde”) is an industrial gas company principally based in 22 Germany. (Dkt. Nos. 1-1 ¶ 7; 1-5 ¶ 31.) Defendant Stephen Angel, incorrectly named as “Steven 23 Angel” in the complaint, is Linde’s former Chief Executive Officer and a Texas resident. (Dkt. 24 Nos. 1-1 ¶ 9; 1-5 ¶ 19.) Defendant Sanjiv Lamba is Linde’s current Chief Executive Officer and a 25 Connecticut resident. (Dkt. Nos. 1-1 ¶ 7; 1-5 ¶ 28.) 26 Plaintiff appears to allege he is a royal prince, and that his family’s company has been 27 1 unlawfully taken over by Sanjiv Lamba in conjunction with Steven Angel. (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶¶ 27, 2 43, 109.) Plaintiff claims “all-encompassing ownership rights” in Linde based on “his family 3 name employed on the company Linde Gas Corp.” (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶ 40.) 4 Plaintiff refers to himself as the “true owner” of Linde. (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶ 80.) He alleges 5 Defendants unlawfully seized ownership of the company, (id. ¶ 84), redistributed his property 6 interest to Sanjiv Lamba, (id. ¶¶ 130, 151), and fraudulently appointed Sanjiv Lamba as CEO. (Id. 7 ¶ 115.) Plaintiff’s opposition2 also posits numerous conspiracies including a global network of 8 fraudulent lawyers “affiliated with Jewish and Scottish high crimes” who “conquered cyberspace 9 with aid from the Chinese Government to monitor court petitioning.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 5-6.) 10 Plaintiff requests equitable relief and $25,034,074,999.00 in damages. (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶ 56.) 11 On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed this matter in San Mateo County Superior Court. (Dkt. 12 No. 1-5.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on November 29, 2023, based on diversity 13 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal 14 jurisdiction and insufficient service of process as to each Defendant. (Dkt. No. 6.) On January 23, 15 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to retain jurisdiction, which Defendants opposed. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 22, 16 25.) The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 18, 23.) 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 I. Personal Jurisdiction 19 Courts recognize two forms of personal jurisdiction, general and specific. Bristol-Myers 20 Squibb Co. v. Super. Court of Cal., S.F. Cty., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017) (citing Goodyear Dunlop 21 Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 918 (2011)). Plaintiff “bears the burden” of 22 establishing personal jurisdiction. In re Boon Global Ltd., 923 F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir. 2019). 23 “Where, as here, the defendant’s motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary 24 hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the 25 motion to dismiss.’” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 26 CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011)). Because Plaintiff 27 1 has not asked for jurisdictional discovery, the Court considers “whether the pleadings and 2 affidavits establish a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. Boon Global, 923 F.3d at 650 3 (cleaned up). “[U]ncontroverted allegations in plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true,” but 4 courts “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are controverted by affidavit.” 5 Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). Any 6 “factual disputes” must be “resolve[d] . . . in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. 7 When, as here, no applicable federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the law of the 8 forum state determines personal jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 9 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). California’s long-arm statute is co-extensive with federal due 10 process requirements, and therefore the jurisdictional analyses under California law and federal 11 due process are the same. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10; Mavrix, 647 F.3d at 1223. 12 A. General Jurisdiction 13 General jurisdiction “permits a court to hear ‘any and all claims’ against a defendant, 14 whether or not the conduct at issue has any connection with the forum.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068. 15 General jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation “is appropriate only when the corporation’s 16 contacts with the forum state are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in 17 the state.” Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up); see 18 also Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he standard 19 for general jurisdiction is high” and “a defendant must not only step through the door, it must also 20 [sit] down and [make] itself at home.” (cleaned up)). 21 B. Specific Jurisdiction 22 “Specific jurisdiction exists when a case arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts 23 with the forum.” Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068. Specific jurisdiction requires a nonresident 24 defendant’s “suit-related conduct [to] create a substantial connection with the forum State.” 25 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284(2014). “When there is no such connection, specific 26 jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” 27 Bristol-Myers, 582 U.S. at 264. The plaintiff “cannot be the only link between the defendant and 1 DISCUSSION I. Personal Jurisdiction 2 A. Linde 3 1. General Jurisdiction 4 The test for general jurisdiction over foreign corporations asks whether the company’s 5 “affiliations with the State are ‘so continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home 6 in the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 119 (2014) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. 7 State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)). Linde “is 8 organized and incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with its principal 9 place of business in Germany.” (Dkt. No. 6-1 ¶ 3.) Linde has no employees, licenses, real 10 property, bank accounts, corporate records, or places of business in California. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff 11 does not allege any facts as to Linde’s contacts with California. Because Plaintiff fails to allege 12 facts demonstrating Linde is at home in California, Plaintiff fails to establish general jurisdiction 13 over Linde. 14 Plaintiff misunderstands personal jurisdiction as physical location personally convenient to 15 the plaintiff. Plaintiff insists “the State of California in forum conveniens court” provides the 16 “ideal forum to address the acquisition exclusive rights demand petitioned by the plaintiff, relative 17 to the fact he is commonly known situated in the State of California under remand conditions.”3 18 (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶ 5.) But general personal jurisdiction focuses on the nonresident corporation’s 19 relationship to the state, not on the plaintiff’s proximity to the state. Martinez, 764 F.3d at 1062. 20 Plaintiff cites California Code of Civil Procedure 410.40 to contend this case “may only 21 proceed in California” as it pertains to “adversaries of a foreign state and plaintiff present inside 22 the State of California jurisdiction.” (Dkt. No. 1-5 ¶ 7.) California Code of Civil Procedure 23 410.40 states “[a]ny person may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of this state against a 24 foreign corporation or nonresident person where the action or proceeding arises out of or relates to 25 any contract, agreement, or undertaking for which a choice of California law has been made in 26 27 1 whole or in part by the parties thereto […].” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.40. This section does not 2 apply as this action does not arise out of any contract between the parties. 3 2. Specific Jurisdiction 4 The Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test to determine if the exercise of specific personal 5 jurisdiction over a nonresident is appropriate: (1) the defendant must purposefully direct its 6 activities toward the forum or purposefully avail itself of the privileges of conducting activities in 7 the forum; (2) the plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or relate to those activities; and (3) the 8 assertion of personal jurisdiction must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. If 9 Plaintiff meets his burden to plead allegations that satisfy the first two prongs, the burden shifts to 10 Defendants to show why the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction would not be reasonable 11 under prong three. Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78 (1985)). 12 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in support of the first prong. To establish this prong, 13 Plaintiff would have needed to proffer facts demonstrating “defendant deliberately ‘reached out 14 beyond’ its home—by, for example, ‘exploi[ting] a market’ in the forum State or entering a 15 contractual relationship centered there.” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 16 U.S. 351, 359 (2021) (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). Plaintiff only argues 17 his physical proximity to California establishes this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. (Dkt. 18 No. 18 at 2.) However, as the Supreme Court has clarified, the relevant inquiry is whether the 19 “defendant’s suit-related conduct [creates] a substantial connection with the forum State.” 20 Walden, 571 U.S. at 284. Linde does not maintain a place of business or properties in California 21 or employ any California residents. (Dkt. No. 6-1 ¶ 4.) And Plaintiff does not allege any facts in 22 any of his pleadings that connect Defendants’ conduct to California. 23 As to the second prong, Plaintiff does not articulate any facts demonstrating his claims 24 arise of out conduct that occurred in California. To establish this connection, Plaintiff would have 25 needed to allege facts demonstrating “but for” causation, in which “a direct nexus exists between 26 [a defendant’s] contacts [with the forum state] and the cause of action.” Yamashita v. LG Chem, 27 Ltd., 62 F.4th 496, 504 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust 1 devoid of any facts that have any causal or temporal connection to California.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 16.) 2 Since Plaintiff failed to satisfy the first two prongs, Defendant Linde, and this Court, need 3 not reach the third prong. 4 * * * 5 The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant 6 Linde because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish either general or specific 7 jurisdiction over Linde. 8 B. Personal Jurisdiction over Stephen Angel and Sanjiv Lamba 9 For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant, “the defendant must engage 10 in continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate physical presence in the 11 forum state.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (cleaned up). Courts may exercise specific 12 jurisdiction over individuals only where the “defendant’s suit-related conduct [creates] a 13 substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 284. The defendant’s 14 “relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.” 15 Id. at 285. 16 Here, Individual Defendants are not “domiciled in the State of California” and neither has 17 the “minimum contacts in the state that could possibly lead to personal jurisdiction.” (Dkt. Nos. 6 18 at 18, 6-2 ¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff makes no specific allegations as to the Court’s jurisdiction over 19 either Individual Defendant. Instead, in his opposition, Plaintiff merely states “the forum is a 20 convenience to plaintiff and Claimant, due to the rationality it would be impossible to travel to 21 Connecticut from California and conduct legal affairs.” (Dkt. No. 18. at 7.) Defendants correctly 22 assert “neither the Complaint nor Plaintiff’s Response shows Mr. Angel and Mr. Lamba have had 23 the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction to exist.” (Dkt. No. 23 at 4.) Plaintiff 24 fails to address these points in his opposition and concludes “[d]ue to a collaborative conspiracy in 25 the State of California by attorneys, courts, and sects incorporate instances, California is adequate 26 for the proceedings.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 8.) Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing of personal 27 jurisdiction as to Individual Defendants because Plaintiff fails to allege Individual Defendants 1 suit-related conduct. 2 So, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over 3 Defendants Angel and Lamba. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack 6 || of personal jurisdiction. The Court notes that while Plaintiff did not ask for jurisdictional 7 discovery, such discovery would be futile. See Malone v. Ahrens & DeAngeli, PLLC, 445 F. 8 || App'x 940, 943 (9th Cir. 2011). As no personal jurisdiction exists, the Court need not reach the 9 issue of service of process. 10 □ □ This Order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 6 and 17. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 4, 2024

5 14 ne A, CQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY, 2 United States District Judge Q 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28