Nagui Mankaruse vs. Intel Corporation, A Delaware Corporation

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 31, 2016

A N nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (State Bar No. 207976) carolyn.luedtke @mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 04/28/2017 at 05:39:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By Danielle Jurado, Deputy Clerk PETER E. GRATZINGER (State Bar No. 228764) peter. gratzinger@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Defendants Intel Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Daniel Patrick Docter, Jason Chen, Arvind Sodhani and Andy Bryant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NAGUI MANKARUSE, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; DANIEL PATRICK DOCTER, an individual; JASON CHEN, an individual; ARVIND SODHANI, an individual; ANDY D. BRYANT, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 30-2016- 00884058-CU-IP-CJC NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT JASON CHEN [Declarations of Peter Gratzinger and Jason Chen in Support of Mot. To Quash Service filed concurrently herewith; (Proposed) Order Granting Motion to Quash lodged herewith] RESERVATION NO.: 72579728 Judge: Hon. Craig Griffin Dept.: C17 Date: May 22, 2017 Time: 2:00 P.M. Action Filed: October 31, 2016 Trial Date: None Set 34635697.2 -1- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS A N nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO NAGUI MANKARUSE, Plaintiff In Pro Per: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C17 of the above-entitled Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendant Jason Chen will and hereby does specially appear and moves to quash the alleged service of the Summons and Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nagui Mankaruse for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Motion to Quash is based on this Notice and Motion to Quash, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declarations of Jason Chen and Peter Gratzinger, all of the pleadings, records, and papers on file herein, as well as such other oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing of this Motion. DATED: April 28, 2017 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE PETER E. GRATZINGER By: /s/ Peter E. Gratzinger PETER E. GRATZINGER Attorneys for Defendants Intel Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Daniel Patrick Docter, Jason Chen, Arvind Sodhani and Andy Bryant 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS A N nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. III. 34635697.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF PACTS caswsssmosmss sumone ssmnessuemss os sins oso asm ss ee ess 6 6a ames 6 ARGUMENT coisa eet sabes eee sees sabe eie enn ee sree eas 7 A. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen Because He Has Not BEEN SEIVEd...cooeiiiiiieie eee eee eee eee eee sees sae esas 7 B. Plaintiff Cannot Meet His Burden To Demonstrate Minimum Contacts Sufficient To Sustain Personal Jurisdiction sv. sawmsmonmasmmmmnoss ams mmm 9 I. The Court Does Not Have General Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen. ................ 10 2. The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen................ 11 CONCLUSION Lc. eects etcetera sate sees ee sree sabe eabe enna sees sane enaees 14 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page STATE CASES American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal. APP.Ath 383... ee eters ete seeest ee sabes abe ene eebeesaae ees 8,9 Bresler v. Stavros CLO83) 141 Call APD 365 uns swusnnos sss mss oo sows 55s i5 5555557 5505055505555 5508 555555738 SATRERS S555 00 SHH358 55 10 Bridgeman v. McPherson (2006) 141 Cal. APPA 277 eee eee eee este eee sa te eae atest ee ebae see ane e snes 7 Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.APP-ALI 8... eee eee este ete et te sabes b ee ebb sete e ee enneas 7 Corcoran v. Arouh (1994) 24. Cal APD AI F10D cusnonssvnmnesnossmsssnsmnnsissss ass ssa a 5s 5558 mam STs SERS 8 Cornelison v. Chaney, 16 Cal. 3d 143 (1976)... e tree eave ee sabe ee sabe ee saae ee saae ee sabe ae esaeeennes 10, 11 DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal. APP-4th TO80.....cciiierieeiie ters setae e ste eebe eee esses saee ees 9,11, 12 F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. APP-Ath 782... eee eects eee steers sate eabe eee eas 11,12, 13 Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 CalLAPP.3d 128... eee eaters ee sabe sabe e sees t ee eaee esse ennee 10 Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1951) 107 CalLAPP.2A 495... eee eee eee eee t testes ese e atest ee saaeeebeenene 11 Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal. APP-Ath 1154. coisas e e eee estes sates eee es aesaae ens 7,8 Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.Ath 262.......eiieieeeiieeee eee eters eee estes shasta estes b ee ebbe sabe e ates tee eaaeeerae eens 10 Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. OOBY 162 Call APTA, G70) 050 swans. oo sms sss os sms 55s. i5 555557 S555055.50 35555508 555555738 RATHER» $5555 11, 12. 13 Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.dth 1054... eee eects eee estes eset e setae eb ae ea aae esas ae esss ae assaaessssaessaeeesasaeas 11 Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. APP.Ath 403... oes eters sates e sees st ee sabe sabe e sees nsee sane ns 7 34635697.2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. C1ODG): 1 2s Cl LAI 2 EL nesses ss 0 A OS A AS ET 9,10 Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. APP.3A 1222... eee eee esate sabes b ee ebae sneer a eneas 7 Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. APP-3A T4DT eee e bee ebae eee enneeeneas 8 FEDERAL CASES Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 TLS. 102... te este estes tae e bee sasa ae esas ae esssaesssaaessssaessseeenssaes 13 Beco Dairy Automation, Inc. v. Global Tech Systems, Inc. (E.D. Cal., Feb. 29, 2016, No. 1:12-cv-01310 LJO SMS) 2016 WL 783058........ccccevevvreernneen. 10 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. QOB coerce cee ete ete eset ae eset ae eset ae estas eas aessaaeesssaeesssae sarees ssssee esses esssaees 11 Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Min. Co. (1952) 342 TLS. 437 cece eee etcetera este setae eb ae estas sans ae eass ae enss ae ssssaessneeessreeens 9,11 STATE STATUTES Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(D) ..cccoeeiiiiieiiee ieee eect eee eects e eee eter ee eee ee eenar rere ee eee een easraaeens 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30... uuu ae aesesesese seas assess sessassesssssesssesssneseseaene 7 STATE RULES Cal. RUIes Of COUIt 3.110. ieee eects eects ete e eee ee esse ae ee sssaae eee sae ae en asses ee ssssaeaeanns 7 -5- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS This is the second motion to quash service on Mr. Chen. The Court granted the first motion to quash on April 3, 2017 because Plaintiff Nagui Mankaruse failed to comply with the statutory requirements for service of process. Since that time, Plaintiff has made a second attempt to serve Mr. Chen, but once again, the attempted service was ineffective.’ Mr. Chen is the CEO and President of Taiwan-based Acer, Inc., a global computer hardware and electronics company. (Declaration of Jason Chen In Support of Motion to Quash (“Chen Decl.”) { 1-2.) For over a decade, he has lived and worked in Taiwan. (Id. 2.) Prior to 2005, Mr. Chen held a variety of sales and marketing positions at Intel, and for two of those years, from 2003-2005, he lived in the United States. (/bid.) Mr. Chen has not worked at Intel or lived in the United States since 2005. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 31, 2016, against Intel Corporation and four current and former Intel employees, including Mr. Chen. He filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 17, 2017, adding Acer America Corporation (“Acer America”) as a defendant. Acer America is a subsidiary of Acer, Inc. with offices in San Jose, California. The FAC includes claims for trade secret misappropriation and ten other claims centered on allegations that Intel wrongfully used Plaintiff’s allegedly trade secret cooling technology. Defendants have filed a demurrer to all claims and a special motion to strike one claim of the FAC, which Mr. Chen now seeks to join by special appearance. The only factual allegation against Mr. Chen in the FAC is that in 2004, as an Intel executive, he allegedly signed a non-disclosure agreement on behalf of Intel with Mr. Mankaruse’s company, Delta Engineers. (See FAC at, e.g., {{5, 37.) Plaintiff has not filed any proof of service in this case. According to a proof of service provided to counsel for Defendants, Mr. Mankaruse hired a process server to leave a copy of the Summons and Complaint with a receptionist at Acer America. (Declaration of Peter Gratzinger In Support of Motion to Quash (“Gratzinger Decl.”) Ex. 1.) As the receptionist told the "It has now been over six months since Mr. Chen was named in the Complaint without being served. Contrary to the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff has not sought or obtained any extension to the 60-day deadline for service. See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b), (f). -6- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 process server, however, Mr. Chen does not work at Acer America. (See ibid.) He works at Acer, Inc. in Taiwan. (Chen Decl. |] 1, 3.) Moreover, Mr. Chen has not authorized anyone at Acer America to accept service on his behalf. (Id. 3.) Through this special appearance, Mr. Chen respectfully requests that the Court quash the alleged service of the Summons and FAC on him, for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of service, and because the Mr. Chen lacks the minimum contacts with this forum such that exercising jurisdiction over him would violate due process. IL. ARGUMENT As explained in the Court’s previous Order granting Mr. Chen’s prior motion to quash, “[p]ersonal jurisdiction involves two components: (1) a constitutional basis must exist to exercise it over a person based on his contacts with the forum, and (2) the jurisdiction must be acquired by serving process on the defendant, in strong conformity with service statutes. Upon challenge by the defendant, the plaintiff normally must establish that both are met.” (April 3, 2017 Order, citing Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229; Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal. App.4th 8, 17; Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App.4th 403, 413; Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) Moreover, “the plaintiff’s burden must be met with competent evidence in the form of affidavits and documentary evidence,” not with mere argument. (/bid., citing Ziller, 206 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1232-1233; Bridgeman v. McPherson (2006) 141 Cal. App.4th 277, 286.) Plaintiff cannot meet his burden as to either component. As explained below, his attempted service was ineffective, and in any event, Mr. Chen lacks the constitutionally required “minimum contacts” with this forum. A. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen Because He Has Not Been Served Plaintiff purportedly attempted to serve Mr. Chen by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with a receptionist at Acer America. To the extent Plaintiff was attempting to effect substituted service on Mr. Chen pursuant to section 415.20(b) of the 7- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Code of Civil Procedure, the service attempt was defective for at least the reason that Mr. Chen does not work at Acer America. (See Chen Decl. 3.) Section 415.20(b) provides that “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person being served ... a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box ....” There is no evidence, however, that Acer America’s office in San Jose, California is Mr. Chen’s “usual place of business” or any other qualifying location. To the contrary, Mr. Chen’s “usual place of business” is at a different entity, Acer, Inc., in a different country, Taiwan. (Chen Decl. {{ 1, 3; see also Gratzinger Decl. Ex. 1 [indicating that process server was told that Mr. Chen does not work at Acer Americal.) Substituted service at a location other than one of the places specified in the statute is ineffective. (See, e.g., Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1417 [substituted service ineffective when summons and complaint was left at the home of defendant’s parents and at a restaurant where she previously worked and that she partially owned]; Corcoran v. Arouh (1994) 24 Cal. App.4th 310, 315 [substituted service ineffective where there was no indication in the record to tie defendant to the address where he was allegedly served]; see also Lebel v. Mai, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164, emphasis added [“Substituted service is valid only if a good faith, reasonable effort at personal service on the party to be served is first attempted. [Citations.] Nothing in the record supports a determination that the Granada Hills residence was defendant’s residence or that it was reasonable to attempt personal service of him there, with knowledge that he resided abroad.”].) Thus, service was not effective under section 415.20(b). To the extent Plaintiff contends that Acer America is an authorized agent to accept personal service on behalf of Mr. Chen, that must be rejected as well. A defendant may be personally served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to “an agent authorized to accept service on behalf of that defendant.” (American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389 [ordering trial court to grant motion to quash where personal service was not on defendant or his authorized agent].) An authorized agent includes, for example, “an attorney -8- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 who has been expressly authorized to accept service.” (Ibid.) But when the proof of service indicates service on someone other than the defendant and does not include “some indication that such person was authorized to accept service on defendant’s behalf,” service is ineffective. (Id. at p- 390.) Here, there is no indication that the “Jane Doe” at Acer America who appears on the proof of service was an agent authorized to accept personal service on Mr. Chen. Thus, personal service on an agency theory must be rejected. (See ibid.) Because Plaintiff has not met, and cannot meet, his burden to demonstrate effective service on Mr. Chen, the Motion to Quash should be granted. B. Plaintiff Cannot Meet His Burden To Demonstrate Minimum Contacts Sufficient To Sustain Personal Jurisdiction Mr. Chen’s lack of “minimum contacts” with this forum is a second, independent basis to grant the motion to quash. On a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has constitutionally-sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state. (See, e.g., DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal. App.4th 1080, 1089-1091 [finding that plaintiff failed to meet its burden and reversing denial of motion to quash].) The plaintiff must meet this burden with evidence, not mere allegations. (See ibid. at p. 1090 [unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in meeting plaintiff’s burden to prove minimum contacts].) Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. (Ibid.) A nonresident defendant like Mr. Chen can be subject to the forum’s general jurisdiction where the defendant’s 329 cee contacts are “‘substantial ... continuous and systematic’ and “‘so wide-ranging that they take the 299 place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Ibid., quoting Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Min. Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445, 446 and Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) A nonresident defendant can be subject to specific jurisdiction if “(1) “the defendant has purposefully availed [himself] of forum benefits” with Cec respect to the matter in controversy, (2) “the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” [the] 9999 defendant’s contacts with the forum,””” and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with 9. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fair play and substantial justice.” (/bid., quoting Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262,269.) Neither is applicable here, as set forth below. 1. The Court Does Not Have General Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the Court has general jurisdiction over Mr. Chen. After living in the United States for a brief two-year period, Mr. Chen has not lived or worked in the United States for 12 years. (Chen Decl. 2.) He does not own real property in California. (Id. 4.) As a global CEO, Mr. Chen travels widely, but he only visits the offices of Acer America approximately twice per year. (Ibid.) He does not maintain an office there or in any other place in California. (Id. 3.) Mr. Chen’s occasional visits to this state do not establish general jurisdiction over him. (See Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 149 [twenty trips per year into California over seven years not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction]; see also Jones v. Calder (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 131 [no general jurisdiction in libel case where reporter “traveled to California more than 20 times on Enquirer business, staying an average of one to two weeks each time,” and “visited California at least once for purposes related to the article” at issue]; Bresler v. Stavros (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 365, 368 [where doctor who had not lived in California for years made an overnight visit to California treat several patients, activities were “clearly not ‘extensive or wide-ranging’ or ‘substantial ... continuous and systematic” enough to support general jurisdiction]; Beco Dairy Automation, Inc. v. Global Tech Systems, Inc. (E.D. Cal., Feb. 29, 2016, No. 1:12-cv-01310 LJO SMS) 2016 WL 783058, at *5 [no general jurisdiction where defendant had not lived in California for eight years and subsequent contacts were insufficiently systematic or continuous].) General jurisdiction is precluded under the controlling authority of Cornelison. In that case, not only did the defendant (a truck driver) make 20 trips per year to California, he also had an independent contractor relationship with a California broker and a California Public Utilities Commission license. (See Cornelison v. Chaney, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 149.) The California Supreme Court held that this was not the type and extent of contacts that would justify jurisdiction over defendant as to “all matters regardless of their relevance to the cause of action -10- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 alleged by plaintiff.” (/d.at p. 148.) The Court explained that the “type of activity which has been held sufficient for the exercise of general jurisdiction” was illustrated by the cases Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., supra, 342 U.S. 437 and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 495. (Ibid.) In Perkins, the defendant corporation had “temporarily established virtually all of its administrative functions” in the forum state. (Ibid.) In Koninklijke, “defendant’s substantial purchases of airplanes in California, some 30 local employees, and other local business operations were sufficient to warrant jurisdiction, even though the subject matter of the action was wholly unrelated to the business conducted by the corporation in California.” (Id. at p. 149.) Mr. Chen’s contacts with California are nothing like those in Perkins or Koninklijke, which involved extensive, continuous conduct in California, and are less substantial even than those in Cornelison, where the California Supreme Court found that general jurisdiction did not exist. (/bid..) Therefore, the Court does not have general jurisdiction over Mr. Chen. See id. 2; The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over Mr. Chen Moreover, the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over Mr. Chen. The first prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry requires Plaintiff to provide evidence that Mr. Chen “purposefully availed” himself of the benefits of this forum with respect to Plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation and related allegations, and the second prong requires Plaintiff to show that the dispute “arises out of or relates to” Mr. Chen’s contacts with California. (See DVI, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1090.) Put another way, Plaintiff must show a “substantial nexus or connection” between Mr. Chen’s activities in California and Plaintiff’s claims. (See Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 670, 679-680, quoting Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1068.) Further, even if this substantial nexus is established, the Court must decide whether the exercise of jurisdiction over Mr. Chen in this matter would be “fair and reasonable” and comply with “notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See, e.g, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796, citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-415.) None of these three prongs are satisfied here. -11- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As to the first prong, the sole (unverified) allegation against Mr. Chen is that, on behalf of Intel, he signed a non-disclosure agreement with Delta Engineers in 2004. (FAC at q937,51,99, 116, 151.) There is no allegation that Mr. Chen himself is a party to any contract that is relevant to this dispute. (Ibid.) Nor is there any allegation that Mr. Chen misappropriated, used, or even became aware of the alleged “trade secrets” that are at the heart of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff alleges that his communications in 2004 were with a different Intel employee, Patrick Docter. (See FAC |{ 37-38.) There is no allegation that he even spoke with Mr. Chen at that time. (See ibid.) And in 2005, Mr. Chen left Intel for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Limited. (Chen Decl. 2.) Thus, there is no allegation, let alone evidence, that Mr. Chen purposely availed himself of this forum in any way that is relevant to the subject matter in controversy. (See DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1090.) As to the second prong, the present controversy does not “arise out of” or relate to Mr. Chen’s execution of the non-disclosure agreement, which is not alleged to be in any way wrongful. (See FAC {{37-38.). Plaintiff contends that after executing a non-disclosure agreement with Delta Engineers, Intel misappropriated his alleged trade secrets. (Id. 992-93.) Mr. Chen, however, is not alleged to have had any role in this purported wrongdoing. (See ibid.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a “substantial nexus or connection” between Mr. Chen’s routine and lawful act of signing an NDA on behalf of his employer, and Plaintiff’s claims of a supposed subsequent plot to breach the NDA and misappropriate his trade secrets. Roman is illustrative of Plaintiff’s failure to meet the nexus requirement. (See Roman v. Liberty University, Inc., supra, 162 Cal. App.4th at p. 680.) In Roman, the defendant university’s recruiting coordinator visited the plaintiff in California to recruit him to play football for the university, and the university provided plaintiff a scholarship agreement that plaintiff executed in California. (/d. at p. 674.) Subsequently, while attending the university out of state, the plaintiff was injured due to alleged omissions by the university. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal held that there was no personal jurisdiction over the university because the nexus between the university’s activities in California (the recruiting activity and execution of the scholarship agreement) and the subsequent injury to plaintiff was “so attenuated as to be virtually nonexistent.” (Id. at p. 681.) -12- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ~N O Y B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Similarly, here, Mr. Chen executed an agreement on behalf of Intel, and subsequently, Intel and other individuals at Intel allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and engaged in other alleged misconduct. Even if these allegations are true (which Defendants all dispute), Plaintiff fails to make any connection between Mr. Chen’s act of signing the NDA on behalf of Intel, and the subsequent alleged wrongdoing that led to the Plaintiff’s purported injuries. The connection is “so attenuated as to be virtually nonexistent,” and as a result, Mr. Chen is not subject to personal jurisdiction arising out of that single act. (See ibid.) As to the final prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry, it would not comport with “fair play and substantial justice” to hale into this Court the Taiwan-based CEO of a global company simply because, more than a decade ago in a different job, he signed an NDA on behalf of Intel. The “fair play and substantial justice” prong involves the analysis of several factors, including “the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.” (See F. Hoffman-La Roche v. Superior Court, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 805, citing Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.) The burden of exercising personal jurisdiction over Mr. Chen, a Taiwan resident, would be significant. “The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders.” (Asahi, 480 U.S. at p. 114; see also Chen Decl. 5.) By contrast, Plaintiff would not be left without a remedy. Neither Intel nor Acer America are contesting this Court’s jurisdiction, and there is “no hint in this record” that these defendants are “incapable of responding in damages in the event of an adverse result.” (See F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc, 130 Cal. App.4th at pp. 805-806 [holding that exercising jurisdiction over foreign defendants “offends constitutional due process considerations” when, among other things, relief was available against domestic defendants].) Thus, even if Plaintiff could prove a factual basis to justify the existence of jurisdiction in this case (which he cannot), the Court should find that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and not comply with constitutional due process requirements. (See id.) -13- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS A N nn Bk W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jason Chen’s motion to quash should be granted. DATED: April 28, 2017 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE PETER E. GRATZINGER By: /s/ Peter E. Gratzinger PETER E. GRATZINGER Attorneys for Defendants Intel Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Daniel Patrick Docter, Jason Chen, Arvind Sodhani and Andy Bryant -14- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS