Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Psynergy Enterprise Developments LLC sued seven defendants over the death of Atticus, an Arabian horse Psynergy bred and owned. Three of the defendants — Societa Agricola I.A.T.C. S.r.l. (sued also as Capecci Arabian Training Center), Paolo Capecci, and Susanne Gurschler Capecci (the “Capecci Defendants”) — are Italian. Psynergy asserted fraud and deceit, breach of written contract, negligence, and conversion claims. The Capecci Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The parties agreed the court did not have general personal jurisdiction over the Capecci Defendants. The dispute focused on whether the Capecci Defendants had consented to personal jurisdiction through the operative agreement or had otherwise purposefully availed themselves of the California forum.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Under Martinez v. Aero Caribbean and Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, the plaintiff bears the burden of making out a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. Conflicts of facts are resolved in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction, but allegations contradicted by affidavit cannot be assumed true.
On consent, the agreement Psynergy relied on contained no forum-selection clause. Psynergy’s managing partner stated that defendant Gurschler Capecci had “agreed that jurisdiction and venue” would lie in this district, but the actual written agreement contained no such language. The court declined to find consent based on uncorroborated and document-contradicted statements.
On purposeful availment, the Capecci Defendants’ contacts with California were insufficient. Their conduct was directed at Italian operations training and caring for the horse in Italy, not at the California forum. Psynergy could not show that the Italian defendants had purposefully directed any tortious conduct at California or purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business there.
Because the first prong of the three-part specific personal jurisdiction test failed, the court did not reach reasonableness or the “arises out of” prongs. The court also did not reach the Capecci Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) merits arguments or their forum non conveniens defense.
Key Takeaways
- Personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants requires a real showing of consent (typically through a forum-selection clause) or purposeful availment of the U.S. forum. Generic statements that a defendant verbally “agreed” to jurisdiction will not survive when contradicted by the operative written agreement.
- For California plaintiffs contracting with foreign businesses, including a clear choice-of-forum provision in the written agreement is the cleanest way to preserve jurisdiction. Without one, the plaintiff must demonstrate purposeful availment based on the foreign defendant’s actual conduct directed at California.
- Foreign service providers that perform their services entirely abroad — for example, an Italian Arabian horse trainer caring for the horse in Italy — generally have not purposefully availed themselves of California even when their counterparty is a California entity.
- Courts will resolve factual disputes in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction, but only when those disputes are supported by affidavits and documentary evidence — not when the supposed factual basis is contradicted by the very contract the plaintiff invokes.
- Rule 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction motions can be decided on written submissions; courts need not reach Rule 12(b)(6) merits or forum non conveniens once jurisdiction is found lacking.
Why It Matters
California plaintiffs frequently sue foreign service providers for losses arising from cross-border transactions, and personal jurisdiction is one of the first major hurdles. This decision is a clean reminder that the formal contract documents control the consent analysis, and that performing services abroad does not create purposeful availment of California.
For California businesses contracting with foreign training centers, manufacturers, breeders, or service providers — including in the Arabian horse industry, which involves significant cross-border transactions — the practical lesson is to invest in a clear forum-selection clause in the written agreement. Without one, U.S. plaintiffs will often need to litigate abroad or accept that personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants is unavailable in California.