Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel-WBG v. Wong

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel-WBG, appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of the action against Defendant Frank Ho. We have jurisdiction over Ho’s appeal because the district court directed the entry of a separate, final judgment against Ho under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Reviewing de novo, Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

1. Because it does not affect the outcome, we assume that Plaintiffs submissions — before the district court and on appeal — are admissible and properly before us, and we disregard Ho’s declarations.

2. The district court correctly held that Plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Ho because he does not have constitutionally sufficient “minimum contacts” with Washington. Id. at 801 . In particular, Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing that Ho “expressly aimed” his conduct at Washington. Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2012) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984)). Although Ho may have received reports about the activities…