BERNARD PICOT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and PAUL DAVID MANOS, Plaintiff,
DEAN D. WESTON, Defendant-Appellee
Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California:
December 9, 2014.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. DC No. 5:12 cv-01939 EJD. Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding.
The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of a diversity action alleging tort and contract claims.
The plaintiff, a resident of California, brought the action against the defendant, a resident of Michigan, seeking a declaration that no oral agreement was made, and seeking damages for intentional interference with the parties' sales contract.
The panel held that the defendant neither purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California nor expressly aimed his conduct at California. The panel concluded, therefore, that the district court did not err in dismissing for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.
Thomas M. Boehm (argued), Law Offices of Thomas M. Boehm, Los Gatos, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David H. Schwartz (argued), Angeline Elizabeth O'Donnell, Law Offices of David H. Schwartz, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges, and Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge.[*] Opinion by Judge Tashima.
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Bernard Picot, 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 onethird 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 their sales contract. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
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 California. Picot is a resident of Santa Clara County, California.
Weston and Picot met each other through Manos, a mutual business associate and a resident of Nevada. Weston and Manos have known each other since 2005. In 2009, Manos and Picot were looking to get involved with a hydrogen technology being developed in Texas. Manos asked Weston if he could help by traveling to Texas to assess the technology, which Weston did. Eventually, the three men determined that the technology being developed in Texas was unworkable, and began efforts to develop and sell their own electrolyte formula for use in hydrogen fuel cells.
Exactly how the three men decided to work together is hotly disputed. Weston claims that in 2009, he and Manos met in Michigan and reached an oral agreement under which Weston would help develop, test, fund, and market the technology. In exchange, Weston would receive $20,000 per month and a one-third share of any ...