Mga Entertainment, Inc. v. Innovation First, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

MGA Entertainment, Inc. appeals from the district court’s order dismissing MGA’s claims against Innovation First, Inc., Innovation First Labs, Inc., and Innovation First International, Inc. (collectively, “IFI”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court did not err by concluding that MGA failed to allege sufficient facts to make a prima facie showing that IFI has adequate “continuous and systematic” contact with California to support a finding of general personal jurisdiction. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2854 , 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). While MGA alleged that IFI maintains contacts with various California entities and actively contracts to sell their products in California, the alleged continuous activity is not sufficiently substantial to support the demand that IFI be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 318 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); see also Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that licensing agreements and other contracts with…