{"id":477,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=477"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"psynergy-capecci-personal-jurisdiction-italy-arabian-horse-fraud","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=477","title":{"rendered":"Psynergy Enterprise v. Capecci Arabian Training Center \u2014 N.D. Cal. dismisses dead-horse fraud suit against Italian defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Psynergy Enterprise Developments LLC v. Societa Agricola I.A.T.C. S.R.L., et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-01937<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Personal jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(2); specific jurisdiction; Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions<\/em>; purposeful availment; consent through forum-selection clause; Italian foreign defendants; Arabian horse training<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Psynergy Enterprise Developments LLC sued seven defendants over the death of Atticus, an Arabian horse Psynergy bred and owned. Three of the defendants \u2014 Societa Agricola I.A.T.C. S.r.l. (sued also as Capecci Arabian Training Center), Paolo Capecci, and Susanne Gurschler Capecci (the \u201cCapecci Defendants\u201d) \u2014 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).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Under Martinez v. Aero Caribbean<\/em> and Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

On consent, the agreement Psynergy relied on contained no forum-selection clause. Psynergy\u2019s managing partner stated that defendant Gurschler Capecci had \u201cagreed that jurisdiction and venue\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

On purposeful availment, the Capecci Defendants\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

Because the first prong of the three-part specific personal jurisdiction test failed, the court did not reach reasonableness or the \u201carises out of\u201d prongs. The court also did not reach the Capecci Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) merits arguments or their forum non conveniens defense.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n