throbber
1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`
`Robert H. Bunzel (SBN 99395)
`BARTKO, ZANKEL, BUNZEL & MILLER
`A Professional Corporation
`One Embarcadero Center
`Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1900
`rbunzel@bzbm.com
`
`Joel Kurtzberg (pro hac vice)
`Elai Katz (pro hac vice)
`Herbert S. Washer (pro hac vice)
`Adam S. Mintz (pro hac vice)
`CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
`32 Old Slip
`New York, New York 10005
`Telephone: (212) 701-3000
`jkurtzberg@cahill.com
`ekatz@cahill.com
`hwasher@cahill.com
`amintz@cahill.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Credit Suisse Group
`AG and Credit Suisse AG
`
`ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND COUNSEL
`LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`LISA MCCARTHY, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE, INC., et
`al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION: MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Hon. James Donato
`Judge:
`December 15, 2022
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ......................................................................... 1
`
`ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ 1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`FOREIGN DEFENDANTS ............................................................................................. 3
`
`THE AMENDED COMPLAINT’S JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS ................ 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`NO DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO GENERAL JURISDICTION ........................................ 6
`
`II.
`
`NO DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC JURISDICTION .......................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`All of the Alleged Wrongful Conduct Occurred Outside the United States ................. 8
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Connect the Alleged Conspiracy to the United States ....................... 8
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ “ENTERPRISE JURISDICTION” THEORY FAILS .................................... 11
`
`IV.
`
`THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WOULD BE
`UNREASONABLE..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`DISMISSAL SHOULD BE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND .............................................. 13
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................133
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AirWair Int’l Ltd. v. Pull & Bear Espana SA,
`2020 WL 2113833 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2020) ................................................................................... 13
`
`AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat,
`970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`AmeriSourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
`465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc.,
`874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................8, 8n, 9
`
`Ayla LLC v. Ayla Skin Pty., Ltd.,
`11 F.4th 972 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................................. 8n
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) ........................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Campanelli v. Image First Unif. Rental Serv., Inc.,
`2016 WL 4729173 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) ................................................................................ 11
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 3638551 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015) (Donato, J.) ............................................................ 8n
`
`Carpenter v. Republic of Chile,
`2011 WL 2490947 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2011) ............................................................................... 13n
`
`Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`883 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... 2, 9, 10n, 11
`
`Chase Manhattan Bank v. State of Iran,
`484 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c.,
`2018 WL 3609055 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2018) ................................................................................. 13
`
`Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,
`467 U.S. 752 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 11–12
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ..................................................................................................................6–7, 13
`
`Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ............................................................................................ 10n
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Fire & Police Pension Ass’n of Colo. v. Bank of Montral,
`368 F. Supp. 3d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ............................................................................................ 10n
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court,
`141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) ...................................................................................................................... 8n
`
`Grigsby v. CMI Corp.,
`765 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 13n
`
`In re ICE LIBOR Antitrust Litig.,
`2020 WL 1467354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) ............................................................................... 10n
`
`Jonas v. Estate of Leven,
`116 F. Supp. 3d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................................................ 13n
`
`Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
`465 U.S. 770 (1984) .................................................................................................................... 6–7, 9
`
`Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British Leyland, Ltd.,
`628 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1980) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Krantz v. Bloomberg L.P.,
`2022 WL 2102111 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2022) .................................................................................. 11
`
`Lamont v. Petrucelli,
`2018 WL 4378768 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) ................................................................................. 13
`
`In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 6243526 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) .................................................................................. 10
`
`Martinez v. Aero Caribbean,
`764 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................................ 5–6
`
`Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S,
`52 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp.,
`139 F.2d 871 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 740 (1944) ......................................................... 13n
`
`Paccar Int’l, Inc. v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.,
`757 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy,
`453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Picot v. Weston,
`780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................................ 6–7
`
`Prevail Legal, Inc. v. Gordon,
`2021 WL 1947578 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) ................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`Ranza v. Nike, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 6, 11–12
`
`Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
`374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Sullivan v. Barclays PLC,
`2017 WL 685570 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2017) .................................................................................. 10n
`
`Thomas v. Furness (Pacific) Ltd.,
`171 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 960 (1949) ................................................ 13n
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ..................................................................................................................6–7, 10
`
`West v. Multibanco Comermex, S.A.,
`807 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................................ 11
`
`Yen v. Buchholz,
`2010 WL 1758623 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2010) ................................................................................. 9n
`
`Internet Sources
`
`IBA, LIBOR, https://www.theice.com/iba/libor ................................................................................ 4n, 8
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)...................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard, the undersigned Foreign Defendants (see infra n.1) will and hereby do move
`
`the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), for an order dismissing the First
`
`Amended Complaint (Dkt. 366) (“Amended Complaint” or “AC”) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities, the Declaration of Joel Kurtzberg (“Kurtzberg Decl.”) and exhibits thereto, all cited
`
`authorities, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and any such other and further materials as
`
`the Court shall consider prior to or at the time of hearing on this Motion.
`
`ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 366), like the Complaint (Dkt. 1) (“Compl.”),
`
`fails to allege facts establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`As demonstrated in the Merits Brief, the Amended Complaint fails to cure the antitrust
`
`standing defects identified in this Court’s decision dismissing the Complaint (Dkt. 365) (the “Order”)
`
`or any of the numerous other defects afflicting the Complaint. As to the Foreign Defendants, the
`
`Amended Complaint should also be dismissed because it fails to cure the jurisdictional defects in the
`
`Complaint and plausibly allege facts establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over any
`
`Foreign Defendant.
`
`This Court previously dismissed the Foreign Defendants because Plaintiffs did “not meet their
`
`obligation to come forward with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction” and
`
`instead only put forward “conclusory, vague, and controverted” allegations. Order at 4.
`
`The Amended Complaint adds almost nothing new that even attempts to address those
`
`jurisdictional defects. Like the Complaint, the Amended Complaint challenges as per se unlawful the
`
`setting of U.S. Dollar LIBOR (“LIBOR”), a benchmark established and regulated in the U.K. and
`
`administered by a U.K. company, operating out of its London headquarters, based on panel banks’
`
`daily submissions, all of which were made from outside the United States (primarily from London).
`
`
` 1
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`And like the Complaint, the Amended Complaint fails to demonstrate a substantial connection
`
`between the conduct-in-suit, Plaintiffs’ claims, and the United States.
`
`Almost all of the non-conclusory jurisdictional allegations added to the Amended Complaint
`
`are based on facts already considered and found to be insufficient to support personal jurisdiction by
`
`the Court when it issued the Order. Plaintiffs attempt to make “new” allegations based on certain
`
`Foreign Bank Defendants’ responses to requests for admission—responses made months before the
`
`Order, but that Plaintiffs chose not to submit in opposing the Foreign Defendants’ motion to dismiss
`
`the Complaint—but these allegations merely say that these Defendants engaged in LIBOR-based
`
`transactions in the United States during the relevant time period. They come nowhere close to
`
`meeting Plaintiffs’ burden to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction, because this case is about
`
`Plaintiffs’ LIBOR-based consumer and/or business loan products (if any), not the entirely unrelated
`
`LIBOR-based transactions, such as interest rate swaps, that Defendants entered into with non-parties
`
`alluded to in those responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission. And Plaintiffs still have not
`
`identified a single LIBOR-based transaction that they entered into with any Defendant at all (see infra
`
`n.2), let alone with any Foreign Defendant. In any event, allegations of trading in LIBOR-based
`
`instruments in the forum cannot, by itself, establish jurisdiction—particularly when, as here, they are
`
`not part of the conduct-in-suit. See, e.g., Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68,
`
`87–88 (2d Cir. 2018). And so the core reasons that previously compelled the dismissal of the Foreign
`
`Defendants still apply with full force.
`
`First, Plaintiffs fail to allege that any Foreign Defendant—each of which is incorporated and
`
`has its principal place of business outside the United States—is subject to general jurisdiction.
`
`Second, Plaintiffs fail to allege that any Foreign Defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction
`
`in the United States because Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of or relate to any Defendant’s contacts
`
`with the United States. The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations remains the same: that the mere setting of
`
`LIBOR constitutes an unlawful conspiracy to fix prices in the consumer and business lending market.
`
`But that conduct occurred entirely outside the United States. And it has no plausible connection to
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged harm, which is premised (to the extent alleged at all) entirely on claimed LIBOR -
`
`based transactions by just a few Plaintiffs with entities other than Defendants.
`
`
` 2
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`Nor have Plaintiffs pled anything to suggest that the Foreign Defendants involved in setting
`
`LIBOR expressly aimed their foreign conduct at the United States. Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege
`
`any anticompetitive impact on any Foreign Defendant’s LIBOR-based consumer or business lending
`
`transactions in the United States (if any), let alone that Foreign Defendants set LIBOR for the purpose
`
`of causing any such impact in the United States (even assuming, counterfactually, that all Foreign
`
`Defendants engaged in such transactions).
`
`Third, Plaintiffs’ theory of “enterprise jurisdiction”—which posits that if there is jurisdiction
`
`over a single defendant, such as a Foreign Defendant’s domestic affiliate, there is jurisdiction over
`
`the Foreign Defendant because it allegedly acted as part of an “enterprise” with the domestic
`
`affiliate—is contrary to well-established precedent and should be rejected.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ overreaching theories of jurisdiction, premised on allegations of
`
`misconduct abroad with no nexus to the United States, would (if accepted) violate Foreign
`
`Defendants’ due process rights and threaten international comity.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are 27 individuals, none of whom transacted in a LIBOR-linked instrument directly
`
`with any Defendant anywhere, let alone in the United States. See Merits Br. at 5–7.
`
`B.
`
`FOREIGN DEFENDANTS
`
`Foreign Defendants are all entities that are incorporated and have their principal places of
`
`business outside the United States.1 Kurtzberg Decl. Exs. 1–19. They include: (i) IBA, LIBOR’s
`
`authorized and regulated administrator during the relevant period; (ii) nine of the panel banks that
`
`
`1 The Foreign Defendants are: ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (“IBA”), Barclays Bank PLC
`(“BBPLC”), Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (“Rabobank”), Credit Suisse Group AG (“CSGAG”),
`Credit Suisse AG (“CSAG”), Deutsche Bank AG (“DBAG”), HSBC Holdings plc (HSBCHPLC”),
`HSBC Bank plc (“HSBCBPLC”), Lloyds Bank plc (“Lloyds”), MUFG Bank, Ltd. (“MUFG”), The
`Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFG Ltd. (“BTMU”),which is now known as MUFG and does not exist
`as a separate entity, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (“MUFJFG”), Royal Bank of Scotland
`Group plc (“RBSGPLC”), Royal Bank of Scotland plc (“RBSPLC”), National Westminster Bank plc
`(“NatWest”), Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (“SMBC”), Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group
`Inc. (“SMFG”), SMBC Bank International plc (f/k/a Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe
`Ltd.) (“SMBC BI”), UBS Group AG (“UBSGAG”), and UBS AG (“UBSAG”).
`
`
` 3
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`made LIBOR submissions to IBA2; and (iii) subsidiaries or affiliates of certain panel banks that were
`
`uninvolved in determining or making LIBOR submissions to IBA.
`
`No Foreign Defendant transacted in a LIBOR-linked instrument directly with any Plaintiff.
`
`Many submitted declarations stating that they did not conduct business in the United States 3 or did
`
`not transact in LIBOR-linked consumer credit cards or consumer loans in the United States.4
`
`C.
`
`THE AMENDED COMPLAINT’S JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`On September 13, 2022, the Court dismissed the Foreign Defendants because Plaintiffs did
`
`not meet “their obligation to come forward with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal
`
`jurisdiction.” Order at 4. Those same jurisdictional defects doom the Amended Complaint.
`
`The Amended Complaint purports to allege a conspiracy among IBA and the panel banks to
`
`fix prices and to monopolize, which supposedly impacted the alleged U.S. market for LIBOR-based
`
`consumer and business loans and credit cards. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 36, 69–75, 82–85, with AC ¶¶
`
`143, 149, 154, 158. The Amended Complaint alleges no acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy
`
`that occurred in the United States. Instead, the Amended Complaint offers only vague, conclusory
`
`jurisdictional allegations claiming that the alleged conspiracy “was within the flow of, was intended
`
`to, and did, in fact, have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce of the United States.”
`
`Compare Compl. ¶ 2, with AC ¶ 17. Plaintiffs offer no factual support for the proposition that
`
`Defendants’ transactions in the United States, if any, are related to Plaintiffs’ claims or alleged injury.
`
`Moreover, almost all of the non-conclusory jurisdictional allegations Plaintiffs added to the
`
`Amended Complaint consist of facts that were already before the Court when it issued its Order.
`
`Order at 4. Most are based on the “extensive set of declarations” that Foreign Defendants
`
`
`2 These Defendants are: BBPLC; Rabobank; CSAG (London Branch); DBAG (London Branch);
` See
`IBA, LIBOR,
`HSBCBPLC; Lloyds; MUFG; NatWest; SMBCI; and UBSAG.
`https://www.theice.com/iba/libor.
`3 These Defendants are: IBA; CSGAG; HSBCHPLC; MUFJFG; RBSGPLC; RBSPLC; NatWest;
`SMFG; SMBC BI; and UBSGAG. Kurtzberg Decl. Exs. 1–3, 5, 8–11, 17–18.
`4 These Defendants are: BBPLC; Rabobank; CSGAG; CSAG; IBA; MUFG; Lloyds; NatWest;
`SMFG; and SMBC BI. Kurtzberg Decl. Exs. 2–5, 8–9, 11, 13, 15, 19. The Amended Complaint adds
`“business loans” (AC ¶ 14) to the list of products supposedly affected by the alleged manipulation of
`LIBOR, but Plaintiffs do not specify what a “business loan” is or whether it differs from the
`“consumer loans” identified in the Complaint. In any event, whatever the term is intended to mean,
`Plaintiffs do not allege that they entered into any “business loans,” so it is irrelevant to their claims.
`
`
` 4
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`submitted5—including details about employees and revenues—or the other declarations submitted in
`
`connection with briefing Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint, including details about
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged transactions.6 While Plaintiffs added references to certain Foreign Defendants’
`
`responses to requests for admission, stating that these Foreign Defendants engaged in LIBOR-based
`
`transactions in the United States during the relevant time period,7 these responses say nothing about
`
`whether any Foreign Defendant issued consumer or business loan products in the United States, let
`
`alone to any of the Plaintiffs. The Amended Complaint fails to allege anything that would tie the
`
`LIBOR-based transactions with non-parties referenced in the responses to the requests for admission
`
`to the alleged harm to Plaintiffs.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Plaintiffs “bear[ ] the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper,” Order at 2, and must
`
`“make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062,
`
`1066 (9th Cir. 2014).8 “Conclusory allegations or formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim are
`
`not entitled to the presumption of truth.” Prevail Legal, Inc. v. Gordon, 2021 WL 1947578, at *2
`
`(N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021). Courts “may consider evidence presented in affidavits and declarations in
`
`determining personal jurisdiction.” Id.
`
`
`5 While they have no bearing on the outcome of this motion, Plaintiffs made several allegations in the
`Amended Complaint that misrepresent the information in the declarations. For example, the
`Amended Complaint resorts to the demonstrable fiction that “persons employed by Sumitomo Mitsui
`Banking Corporation Europe Ltd.’s American branch offices and subsidiaries have provided
`information to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd. for the purpose of setting the daily
`USD LIBOR rates.” AC ¶ 54. As its uncontroverted declaration makes clear, Sumitomo Mitsui
`Banking Corporation Europe Ltd. (now known as SMBC BI) has no such “American branch offices
`and subsidiaries” and has no employees or conducts any operations in the United States. Kurtzberg
`Decl. Ex. 9. And, no employee of SMBC, SMFG, SMBC Capital Markets, Inc., or any SMBC BI
`affiliate in the United States was involved in any way in the setting of the daily LIBOR rate. Id. Exs.
`9–11. Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that CSGAG has a New York branch and two representative offices
`in California, and that CSGAG employed 112 people at the New York location. AC ¶ 47. As Foreign
`Defendants’ declaration makes clear, CSGAG’s wholly owned-subsidiary, CSAG—not CSGAG—
`had those contacts. Kurtzberg Decl. Ex. 3 ¶¶ 4, 6; Ex. 2 ¶ 5.
`6 Compare, e.g., AC ¶ 12, with Kurtzberg Decl. Ex. 4 ¶ 14; compare, e.g., AC ¶¶ 13, 14, 19, 26, with
`Kurtzberg Decl. Exs. 2 ¶ 8; 3 ¶ 8; 4 ¶ 11; 5 ¶ 14; 8 ¶ 15; 9 ¶ 5; 11 ¶ 5; 13 ¶ 8; 15 ¶ 9; 19 ¶ 13; 20 ¶ 9.
`7 The Plaintiffs made no new jurisdictional allegations against Foreign Defendant IBA, which is not
`in the business of issuing credit cards, or underwriting mortgages or consumer loans anywhere in
`the world, much less the United States. Kurtzberg Decl. Ex. 4 ¶ 11.
`8 Unless stated otherwise, internal citations and quotations are omitted.
`
`
` 5
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`Personal jurisdiction may be general (all-purpose) or specific (conduct-linked). See Omeluk
`
`v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1995). In either case, the relevant
`
`inquiry focuses on each defendant’s contacts with the forum. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 282–
`
`85 (2014); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014). That inquiry is defendant-specific, see
`
`Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n.13 (1984), and must be conducted on a claim-
`
`by-claim basis. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`NO DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO GENERAL JURISDICTION
`
`This Court has already held that no Foreign Defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in the
`
`forum, Order at 4, and nothing in the Amended Complaint supports a different result. A court may
`
`exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant in a forum “only when the corporation’s affiliations
`
`with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render [it] essentially at
`
`home in the forum State.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 122. For a corporation, “the place of incorporation
`
`and principal place of business are paradig[m] bases for general jurisdiction.” Id. at 137; Martinez,
`
`764 F.3d at 1070.
`
`In Daimler, the Court considered the possibility that an “exceptional case” could allow for the
`
`exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant that is not incorporated and does not have its
`
`headquarters in the relevant forum. 571 U.S. at 139 n.19 (finding that temporarily moving a foreign
`
`corporation’s principal place of business to Ohio during World War II rises to this level). But in such
`
`a case, a defendant’s contacts with the state must be “so continuous and systematic as to render [it]
`
`essentially at home in the forum State.” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015). In
`
`deciding whether a case is “exceptional,” a court must consider the defendant’s contacts with the
`
`forum and compare them to its “activities in their entirety, nationwide, and worldwide.” Martinez,
`
`764 F.3d at 1070. A corporation’s presence in a forum state through its offices or branches is hardly
`
`enough to rise to Daimler’s “exceptional” status. 571 U.S. at 139 n.19.
`
`The Amended Complaint, like the Complaint, fails to establish general jurisdiction over any
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05832-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05832-JD Document 375 Filed 11/04/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`Foreign Defendant.9 No Foreign Defendant is incorporated in the United States, has its primary place
`
`of business in the United States, or has sufficient contacts with the United States to render any of
`
`them an “exceptional case” under Daimler. AC ¶¶ 36–55. The Amended Complaint adds no non-
`
`conclusory allegations not previously pleaded that are even relevant to whether any Foreign
`
`Defendant is subject to general jurisdiction. While Plaintiffs cite the responses to requests for
`
`admissions by certain Foreign Defendants stating that they traded LIBOR-based instruments in the
`
`United States, id. at ¶¶ 24–25, those allegations do not come close to satisfying the Ninth Circuit’s
`
`standard for general jurisdiction.
`
`II.
`
`NO DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
`
`Equally unavailing is Plaintiffs’ effort to establish specific jurisdiction over Foreign
`
`Defendants. Plaintiffs have added no new, non-conclusory allegations that establish specific
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Specific jurisdiction requires a fact-intensive inquiry into the defendant’s “suit-related
`
`conduct” that must create a “substantial connection with the forum State” and “must arise out of
`
`contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State,” and cannot be based on “contacts
`
`he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 283–86
`
`(emphasis in original); Picot, 780 F.3d at 1214. A court’s conclusions must be based solely on the
`
`“very activity” that forms the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of act ion, Keeton, 465 U.S. at 780, and
`
`“must focus on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, not the defendant’s contacts with a
`
`resident of the forum.” Picot, 780 F.3d at 1214. A “mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient
`
`connection to the forum.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 278.
`
`For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction: “(1) [t]he non-resident defendant must
`
`purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket