1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESUS ROMERO, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00518-JD

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 51, 52, 58, 67 10 AGRO RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Defendant Sentinel Biologics, Inc. (Sentinel) has asked to dismiss multiple complaints 14 against it, namely plaintiff Romero’s Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 30, Agro Research 15 International LLC’s (Agro) Amended Third-Party Complaint, Dkt. No. 60, and Wilbur-Ellis Co., 16 LLC’s (Wilbur-Ellis) Crossclaims, Dkt. No. 35. See Dkt. Nos. 51, 58, and 67. The claims against 17 Sentinel are based on its supply to Agro of a compound that is said to be non-organic for use in an 18 herbicide and fertilizer that Agro marketed and sold as organic in California. Sentinel is 19 headquartered in Texas, and challenges personal jurisdiction in this District. Dkt. Nos. 51, 58, and 20 67. 21 The Court declines to resolve the personal jurisdiction question on the patchwork factual 22 record presently before it. A short period of discovery targeted solely at the jurisdiction issue is 23 warranted. The motions to dismiss Romero’s and Wilbur-Ellis’s complaints, and Agro’s amended 24 complaint, Dkt. Nos. 51, 58, and 67, are terminated without prejudice to renewal if discovery so 25 warrants. 26 The Court has written extensively on the governing standards for Sentinel’s personal 27 jurisdiction, which informs the discussion here. See Daramola v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 19-cv- 1 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that 2 jurisdiction is proper.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). If the court 3 does not require an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of 4 personal jurisdiction. Id. Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and 5 “[c]onflicts between the parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the 6 plaintiff’s favor.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004); 7 Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. On the other hand, the Court “may not assume the truth of 8 allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., 9 Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). 10 Where, as here, no federal statute authorizes personal jurisdiction, the Court applies the 11 law of the state in which it sits. Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 12 1998). California’s long-arm statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, is coextensive with the limits 13 of the Constitution’s due process clause, so the Court need only ensure that that clause permits its 14 jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800-01. 15 The parties filed a bumper crop of briefs and declarations contesting the facts relating to 16 specific jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 51, 52, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 71, 72 (briefs); Dkt. Nos. 17 51-2, 52-2, 58-2, 61-1, 63-1, 63-2, 67-2, 67-3, 71-1, 72-1 (declarations). Each side disputes the 18 other’s evidence. Consequently, “a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” 19 Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020 (internal quotation omitted). 20 The parties are advised that, “for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there 21 must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity 22 or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior 23 Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919); see also Walden v. 24 Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283-84 and n.6 (2014). Plaintiffs, Agro, and Wilbur-Ellis need to 25 demonstrate that their claims arise out of Sentinel’s contacts with this forum. Bristol-Myers 26 Squibb, 137 S. Ct. at 1780-81. 27 The discovery will take the usual forms of document requests and interrogatories 1 thinking, these appear to be whether Sentinel designed its component for Agro with the knowledge 2 that it would be sold in California as an “organic product,” Dkt. No. 61 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 71 at 4, 3 and whether Sentinel was registered with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 4 || demonstrating an intent to sell products within California, Dkt. No. 61 at 5. To the fullest extent 5 possible, Romero, Wilbur-Ellis, and Agro, should serve joint discovery requests on Sentinel to 6 avoid duplicative work. The Court emphasizes that the discovery should be targeted to evidence 7 || meeting the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction as discussed here. The discovery must 8 be completed by July 15, 2022. Romero, Wilbur-Ellis, and Agro may also take one 7-hour 9 deposition of a named Sentinel witness, or a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of no more than 5 10 || jurisdictional topics, or a combination of the two. 11 After the limited discovery is completed, Romero, Wilbur-Ellis, and Agro may file an 12 amended complaint, cross-claim, or third party complaint, respectively, alleging the facts that they 5 13 || believe sufficient to demonstrate jurisdiction over Sentinel. The amended complaints must be 14 || filed by August 8, 2022. Sentinel may respond with a single renewed motion to dismiss the 3 15 amended complaint, cross-claim, and third party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction as 16 appropriate. Plaintiffs, Wilbur-Ellis, and Agro may file a single, joint opposition to that motion. 3 17 The case is stayed in all respects other than the jurisdictional discovery and the filing of the 18 amended complaints and response. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal with 19 || prejudice under Rule 41(b). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 4, 2022 22 23

JAMES#ONATO

United Ptates District Judge 25 26 27 28