Bernard Picot v. Dean Weston

Good Law
780 F.3d 1206·2015 WL 1259528·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4437
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 201512-17098California3,619 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tashima, J.

Plaintiff Bernard Pieot, a resident of California, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Defendant Dean Weston, a resident of Michigan, for lack of personal jurisdiction. From 2010 to 2012, Picot and Weston worked together with a third man, Paul David Manos, to develop and market an electrolyte for use in hydrogen fuel cells. After Picot and Manos sold the electrolyte technology without telling Weston, Weston claimed that he was entitled to a one-third share of the proceeds under an oral agreement. In response, Picot and Manos sued Weston in California seeking a declaration that no oral agreement was made, and for damages for intentional interference with then-sales contract. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

I.

Weston is a resident of Waterford, Michigan. He has made a career of developing technologies for use in Michigan’s automotive industry through his corporation, Engineering Interests, Inc., which is incorporated in Michigan and headquartered in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Outside the events involved in this suit, neither Weston nor Engineering Interests has ever conducted business in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.