`
`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