Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 28
`
`Nancy Erfle, OSB #902570
`Email: nerfle@gordonrees.com
`GORDON & REES LLP
`
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: 503.222.1075
`Facsimile: 503.616.3600
`
`Jennifer D. Hackett, admitted pro hac vice
`Email: hackettj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`DICKSTEIN SI-IAPIRO LLP
`
`1825 Eye Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.420.4413
`Facsimile: 202.420.2201
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`PORTLAND DIVISION
`
`PARAGON BIOTECK, INC.,
`
`No. 3:15-CV-00189-PK
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`"5
`
`ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
`
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC
`
`Defendants.
`
`_
`
`"I
`
`ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS,
`INC. AND SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE,
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER 01:‘ VENUE
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503)616-3600
`
`PARAGON - EXHIBIT 2006
`
`PARAGON - EXHIBIT 2006
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`LOCAL RULE 7-1(a) CERTIFICATION .................................................................................... ..1
`
`MOTION ....................................................................................................................................... ..1
`
`MEMORANDUM ......................................................................................................................... ..1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... ..2
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. ..S
`
`I.
`
`PARAGON’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
`PERSONAL IURISDICTION IN THIS COURT ................................................. .. S
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Standards ................................................................. ..S
`
`Defendants Are Not Subject To Personal Jurisdiction In This Court........ ..7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Paragon Has Not Demonstrated That Defendants
`Purposefiilly Availed Themselves Of Conducting Activities
`in This Forum ................................................................................ .. 7
`
`Paragon Fails To Show That Its Claims Arise out of
`Defendants’ Forum-Related Activities .......................................... .. 8
`
`It Would Be Unreasonable To Require Defendants To
`Litigate in This Forum ................................................................... ..9
`
`PARAGON’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
`VENUE IS IMPROPER IN OREGON ............................................................... ..10
`
`AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISSAL, VENUE SHOULD BE
`TRANSFERRED TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ............... ..1l
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Agreement’s Venue Provision Controls Plaintiff’ 5 Claims and
`Is Presumptively Valid ............................................................................ .. 12
`
`Public Interest Factors Do Not Overwhelmingly Disfavor Transfer
`Under § 1404(A) ...................................................................................... .. 15
`
`Private Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer Under § l404(A) ................ ..17
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`THE CLAIMS AGAINST SAW AQUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
`PURSUANT TO RULE l2(B)(6) ....................................................................... ..20
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... ..22
`
`Page i ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page No.
`
`Allstar Mktg. GI;p., LLC v. Your Store Online LLC,
`666 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................16
`
`Ashcrofl‘ v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................ ..20
`
`Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. US Dist. Courtfor W Dist. ofTexas,
`134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) ............................................................................................ ..11, 12,15, 17
`
`Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................ ..20
`
`Blincoe v. W. States Chiropractic Coll.,
`No. CV 06-998-PK,
`2007 WL 2071916 (D. Or. July 14, 2007) .............................................................................. ..22
`
`Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon,
`606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... ..5, 6
`
`Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. v. I-IR Stafiing, Inc,
`No. 3 : 14-cv-00559-HZ,
`2015 WL 133677 (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2015) ................................................................................... ..21
`
`Daimler AG v. Batman,
`134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) .............................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................. ..15, 16
`
`Doclcsider, Ltd. v. Sea Tech, Ltd.,
`875 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................. ..13, 14
`
`Emmert Indus. Corp. v. Copeland Equip. Parts, Inc.,
`No. 09-229-PK,
`2009 WL 2447550 (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2009) ............................................................................. ..5, 7
`
`Gaston v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 3:12-CV-0063-ST,
`2012 WL 629868 (D. Or. Feb. 2, 2012),
`report and recommendation adopted,
`No. 3:12-CV-00063-ST,
`2012 WL 610005 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2012) ................................................................................ ..10
`
`Guenther v. Crosscheck Inc. ,
`No. C 09~01 106 WI-IA,
`2009 WL 1248107 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2009) ................................................................... ..13, 14
`
`Page ii ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMIS 5 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANS TER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503)222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Gullette v. Lancaster & Chester Co. ,
`No. 3:14-cv-00537-HZ,
`2014 WL 3695515 (D. Or. July 23, 2014) ................................................................ ..5, 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Page No.
`
`Ingenieria Alimentaria Del Matatipac, SA. de C. V. v. Ocean Garden Products Inc.,
`320 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ .. 12
`
`Int ’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................................................. ..5
`
`Jaliwa v. Concerned Citizens ofS. Cent. Los Angeles,
`No. 06CV2617BTMLSP,
`2007 WL 2021818 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2007) .......................................................................... .. 11
`
`Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
`211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.2000) .................................................................................................... ..18
`
`MS Bremen v. Zapata Ofii-Shore Co.,
`407 U.S. 1 (1972) .................................................................................................................... ..12
`
`Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc.,
`858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Mead Investments, Inc. v. Garlic Jim 3' Franchise Corp. ,
`No. 08-922-HU,
`2008 WL 4911911 (D. Or. Nov. 13,2008) ....................................................................... ..13, 14
`
`Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. ..20
`
`Multimin USA, Inc. v. Walco Internation, Inc.,
`No. CV F 06-0226 AWI SMS,
`2006 WL 1046964 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2006) ......................................................................... .. 10
`
`Noise in Attic Prods, Inc. v London Records,
`10 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) .................................................................................... ..21
`
`Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing,
`598 F.2d 49] (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................... ..]0
`
`Premier Cmty. Bank v. FirstAm. Title Ins. Co,
`No. 3: 14-CV-0091 3-PK,
`2014 WL 5018814 (D. Or. Sept. 25, 2014) ....................................................................... ..16, 18
`
`Rowen v. Soundview Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. l4~CV—-05530-WHO,
`2015 WL 899294 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2,2015) ............................................................................ ..12
`
`Page iii ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503)222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. ,
`374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... ..7, 1]
`
`Page No.
`
`Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. ..20
`
`SoccerSpecific. com v. World Class Coaching, Inc. ,
`No. CIV. 03-6109-TC,
`2008 WL 4960232 (D. Or. Nov. 18, 2008) ............................................................................. ..10
`
`Sterling Fores! Assoc. Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp.,
`840 F.2d 249 (4th Cir.1988) ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ............................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Statutes
`
`28 United States Code
`section 1391 ....................................................................................................................... ..10, 15
`
`28 United States Code
`section 1404 ..................................................................................................... ..l1, 12,15, 16,17
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`rule 12 ............................................................................................................ ..l,2,l0,1l,20, 23
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`rule 9 ........................................................................................................................................ ..22
`
`Local Rules rule 7-1 ...................................................................................................................... ..l
`
`Page iv ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION T0
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 28
`
`LOCAL RULE 7-l§A) CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to L.R. 7-1(a), defendants certify that, through its counsel, they made a good
`
`faith effort to resolve the issues contained in the Motion through a telephone conference with
`
`plaintiff’ s counsel on March 19, 2015; however, the parties are unable to resolve this dispute
`
`without the Court’s assistance.
`
`MOTION
`
`Defendants hereby move this Court for an order granting a Motion to Dismiss the above-
`
`captioned Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(2) and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).
`
`In the altemative, Defendants move for transfer of the above-captioned action to the Eastern
`
`District of New York. Additionally Saw Aque also moves to dismiss all of the claims against
`
`it for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`Defendants Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Altaire”) and Sawaya Aquebogue,
`
`LLC (“Saw Aque”) (collectively “Defendants”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law
`
`in support of their Motion to Dismiss the above-captioned Complaint for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and improper venue
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure I2(b)(3). In the alternative, Defendants move
`
`for transfer of the above-captioned action to the Eastern District of New York. Saw Aque
`
`also submits this memorandum of law in support of its Motion to Dismiss all of the claims
`
`against it for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`1 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`Page
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503)222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 7 of 28
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The only connection this Court has to the Complaint of Plaintiff Paragon Bioteck, Inc.
`
`(“Paragon”) is that Paragon’s principal place of business is in Oregon. As discussed below and
`
`in the Declaration of Assad Sawaya (“Sawaya Decl.”), no other connections to the forum State
`
`exist. Because a plaintiff's location, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements
`
`under federal law to establish personal jurisdiction and venue over a defendant, Paragon’s Com-
`
`plaint must be dismissed. Even if the Court determines that Paragon has met both the personal
`
`jurisdiction and venue hurdles, the above-captioned case should be transferred to the Eastern
`
`District of New York because there is a valid forum-selection clause that establishes venue in
`
`that forum.
`
`Further, even if the Court does not dismiss Paragon’s Complaint on personal jurisdiction
`
`or venue grounds, it should dismiss the Complaint as to Saw Aque for failure to state a claim
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(6). Nowhere in its Complaint does Paragon
`
`allege that Saw Aque has engaged in any wrongful conduct at all, let alone conduct sufficient to
`
`withstand a motion to dismiss Paragon’s Complaint. Paragon’s Complaint as to Saw Aque,
`
`therefore, should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Altaire is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Aquebogue,
`
`New York, which is located in Suffolk County of that State.‘ Sawaya Dec]. 1| 2. All of Altaire’s
`
`employees, shareholders, officers and directors are located in New York. Id. Altaire is a pharm-
`
`1 The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has jurisdiction over
`Suffolk County, New York. United States District Court Eastern District of New York,
`https://www.n3,;ed.uscoL1rts.gov (last visited Mar. 18, 2015).
`
`Page 2 — ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-] 075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 8 of 28
`
`aceutical manufacturer that compounds, fills and packages liquid and semi-solid pharmaceutical
`
`(both prescription and over-the-counter) and homeopathic products, including ophthalmic pro-
`
`ducts. Id. 1] 3. The entire manufacturing process takes place in New York and the products are
`
`stored in New York until they are shipped to purchasers. Id.
`
`Saw Aque is a limited liability company organized in New York, with its only office in
`
`Aquebogue, New York. Id. 1] 4. All of Saw Aque’s employees, shareholders, officers and direc-
`
`tors are located in New York. Id
`
`Neither Altaire nor Saw Aque is licensed to do business in Oregon, nor do they own any
`
`property or maintain any facilities in Oregon. Id. 1]1] 5-6. Neither Altaire nor Saw Aque has ever
`
`sent any employees to Oregon for any purpose. Id. 1] 7. Indeed, before Paragon contacted
`
`Altaire to propose a business relationship in 2011, neither Altaire nor Saw Aque had any
`
`connection to Oregon at all. Id. 1] 8.
`
`In early 2011, Patrick Witham, an employee of Paragon, contacted Altaire to propose
`
`a business arrangement whereby Paragon would take steps to file New Drug Applications
`
`(“NDAs") with the Food and Drug Administration for certain ophthalmic products. Id. 1]1] 9, 13;
`
`Compl. 1] 8. Paragon and Altaire negotiated a written Agreement (the “Agreement”) in New
`
`York pursuant to which Paragon would file the NDAs and Altaire would provide certain input
`
`necessary to file the NDAs. Sawaya Decl. 1]1] 10, 13; Comp]. 1] 8. Altaire would then become
`
`the exclusive manufacturer and supplier of the products, and Paragon would be the exclusive
`
`marketer and distributor. Ex. 1 to Sawaya Decl. at 1. The Agreement was signed on May 30,
`
`2011. Sawaya Decl. 1] 10; Compl. 1] 8. Paragon and Altaire agreed that if any disputes arose
`
`with respect to the Agreement, venue would be proper in New York federal or state court and
`
`Page 3 — ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite I575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—O0189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 9 of 28
`
`that the Agreement would be construed under New York law. Sawaya Decl. 1]1] 1 1-12; Ex. 1
`
`at 5.
`
`As contemplated, given the nature of its business, all of the activities in which Altaire
`
`engaged pursuant to the Agreement (or otherwise) have taken place in New York. Sawaya Decl.
`
`1]1] 13, 15, 16, 17, 20. While Paragon’s employees have visited Altaire in New York on a num-
`
`ber of occasions, from 201] and continuing through 2014, no one from Altaire or Saw Aque has
`
`ever traveled to Oregon to meet with Paragon, and no person from either Altaire or Saw Aque
`
`has attended any Paragon shareholder meetings in Oregon. Id 1]1] 7, 16, 22. The products that
`
`Altaire ships to Paragon are shipped to Paragon’s facilities in Florida and Pennsylvania. Id. 1] 15.
`
`In 2013, Paragon entered into a commercialization and distribution agreement with
`
`Bausch & Lomb, which is incorporated in New York, with its headquarters in New Jersey. Id.
`
`1] 20; Comp]. 1] 22. Pursuant to that agreement, Bausch & Lomb has from time to time made
`
`payments to Altaire in New York against Altaire’s invoices issued to Paragon for the sale of
`
`Altaire’s products and as instructed by Paragon. Sawaya Decl. 1] 20.
`
`Saw Aque is not a party to the Agreement between Paragon and Altaire. Id. 1] 21. Pur-
`
`suant to the Agreement, Altaire provided consideration to Saw Aque. Id. 1] 21; Ex. 1 to Sawaya
`
`Decl. at 1. Saw Aque has no obligations to Altaire pursuant to the Agreement or otherwise. Ex.
`
`1 to Sawaya Decl.
`
`Page 4 —- ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC‘S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`12] SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 10 of 28
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PARAGON’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
`
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT
`
`A.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Standards
`
`Personal jurisdiction is governed by the law of the forum state in the absence of a federal
`
`statute. Emmert Indus. Corp. v. Copeland Equip. Parts, Inc., No. 09-229—PK, 2009 WL
`
`2447550, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 7, 2009). Because Oregon’s long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to
`
`the extent permitted by due process, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction so long as a
`
`defendant has “minimum contacts with the relevant forum such that maintenance of the suit does
`
`not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (quoting in! ’l Shoe Co. v.
`
`Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). The Court may exercise general or specific jurisdiction
`
`over a defendant. Id.
`
`Recently, the United States Supreme Court established that corporations are subject to
`
`general jurisdiction, absent exceptional circumstances, only where they are incorporated or have
`
`their principal place of business. Daimler AG v. Batman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Because
`
`Paragon’s Complaint does not allege that either Altaire or Saw Aque is incorporated in or has
`
`its principal place of business in Oregon, general jurisdiction is not at issue in this case.
`
`The Ninth Circuit uses a three-part test to determine whether a non-resident defendant
`
`has sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction. Gullette v.
`
`Lancaster & Chester Co., No. 3: 14-cv-00537-HZ, 2014 WL 3695515, at *3 (D. Or. July 23,
`
`2014) (citing Braytan Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.
`
`2010)). First, the non—resident defendant “must purposefully direct his activities or consummate
`
`Page 5 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 11 of 28
`
`some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purpose-
`
`fully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum.” Brayton Purcell,
`
`606 F.3d at 1 128. Second, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum-related
`
`activities. Id. Third, the exercise ofjurisdiction must be “reasonable.” Id
`
`In addition to Daimler, last year, the United States Supreme Court also addressed specific
`
`personal jurisdiction in Walden v. Flore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), and in particular, clarified the
`
`“minimum contacts” standard. In Walden, the Supreme Court explained that the specific person-
`
`al jurisdiction inquiry must focus on “the relationship among the [non-resident] defendant, the
`
`forum, and the litigation,” and that the defendant’s suit-related conduct “must create a substantial
`
`connection with the forum State.” Id. at 1121. As the Supreme Court held and this Court has
`
`recognized, this connection depends on two aspects: (1) “‘the relationship must arise out of
`
`contacts that the defendant himse-Ucreates with the forum State;’” and (2) the “minimum con-
`
`tacts" analysis looks to the non-resident defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, rather
`
`than the defendant’s contacts with the resident plaintiff. Gullette, 2014 WL 3695515, at *3
`
`(quoting Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1121).
`
`Under Ninth Circuit law, Paragon bears the burden to show that it has met the first two
`
`prongs of the specific jurisdiction test. Id. Because Paragon cannot satisfy even the first prong,
`
`the Court should dismiss Paragon’s Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. Even if
`
`Paragon met its burden to show that (1) Defendants had “purposefully availed” themselves of
`
`conducting activities in the forum and (2) Paragon’s claims arise out of Defendants’ “forum-
`
`related activities,” however, Defendants can show that the exercise ofjurisdiction in this Court
`
`would not be reasonable.
`
`Page 6 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8:: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503)616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 12 of 28
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Are Not Subject To Personal Jurisdiction In This Court
`
`1.
`
`Paragon Has Not Demonstrated That Defendants
`Availed Themselves Of Conducting Activities in This Forum
`
`Purposefully
`
`Because Paragon’s claims arise out of a contract between Paragon and Altaire, the Court
`
`must analyze whether Defendants “purposefully availed [themselves] of the privilege of con-
`
`ducting activities in the forum.” Id. (citing Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor C0,, 374 F.3d
`
`797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)? This analysis examines “whether the defendant’s contacts are
`
`attributable to his own actions or are solely the actions of the plaintiff.” Gullerte, 2014 WL
`
`3695515, at *4. As the Supreme Court in Walden noted, the relationship with the forum “must
`
`arise out of contacts that the defendant himselfcreates with the forum." 134 S. Ct. at 1122
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`In this case, Paragon has failed to plead any facts that show that Altaire or Saw Aque
`
`purposefully conducted activities in Oregon. Paragon contacted Altaire to enter into a business
`
`relationship, and the Agreement between Paragon and Altaire is Defendants’ only connection to
`
`Oregon. This District has held that a contract between a resident plaintiff and a non-resident
`
`defendant can create sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant only
`
`where the contract establishes a “continuing relationship" with the forum state. Emmert, 2009
`
`WL 2447550, at *4. Paragon has failed to demonstrate that the Agreement between Paragon and
`
`Altaire establishes such a relationship, because a “continuing relationship is not established by
`
`2 As discussed infra in Section IV, Paragon makes no allegations whatsoever regarding Saw
`Aque’s conduct. Paragon therefore clearly has failed to meet its burden with respect to
`establishing personal jurisdiction over Saw Aque in this forum. See, e.g., Gullette, 2014 WL
`3695515, at *6 (dismissing parent company defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction where
`parent company was not a party to the contract and never had a contractual relationship with
`the plaintiff).
`
`Page 7 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon 8: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 13 of 28
`
`a contract for the sale of a good that involved the forum state only because that is where the
`
`purchaser happened to reside, but otherwise created no substantial connection or ongoing
`
`obligations there.” Id. at *5 (citations omitted). Similarly, although Paragon asserts that
`
`personal jurisdiction is appropriate because Altaire placed telephone calls into Oregon and sent
`
`documents to Oregon, “[r]epeated communication with residents of another state cannot alone
`
`establish a continuing relationship.” Id. Because Paragon makes no other allegations of contacts
`
`between either of the Defendants and Oregon, it fails to satisfy the first prong of the specific
`
`personal jurisdiction test.
`
`2.
`
`Paragon Fails To Show That Its Claims Arise out of Defendants’ Forum-
`Related Activities
`
`Because Paragon has failed to satisfy the purposeful availment analysis, its claims should
`
`be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the Court determines, however, that Paragon
`
`has met its burden on the first prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test, Paragon still has
`
`not sufficiently demonstrated that its claims arise out of Defendants’ activities in this forum. In
`
`making this determination, the Ninth Circuit follows a “but-for” test, asking whether “but for
`
`Defendants’ contacts with Oregon, would the claims against Defendants have arisen?” Gullerte,
`
`2014 WL 3695515, at *6. This District has held that a contract with an Oregon resident is insuf-
`
`ficient on its own to satisfy this prong. Id. Because Paragon has alleged no other contacts with
`
`Oregon besides those stemming from the Agreement that Paragon initiated, Paragon fails to meet
`
`the second prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test.
`
`Page 8 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon & Rees LLP
`112] SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 14 of 28
`
`3.
`
`It Would Be Unreasonable To Require Defendants To Litigate in This
`Forum
`
`Even if the Court finds that Paragon has satisfied the first two prongs of the specific
`
`personal jurisdiction test, it should dismiss Paragon’s Complaint for lack of personal juris-
`
`diction because the Court’s exercise ofjurisdiction over Defendants would be unreasonable.
`
`To determine whether the exercise ofjurisdiction is reasonable, this District balances seven
`
`factors:
`
`(1) the extent of the defendants’ purposeful interjection into the forum
`state's affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum;
`(3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants’ state;
`(4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most
`efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the
`forum to the plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief; and
`(7) the existence of an alternative forum.
`
`Gullette, 2014 WL 3695515, at *6. No one factor is dispositive; instead, all seven must be
`
`weighed together. Id.
`
`The outcome of each of the above factors weighs against exercising personal jurisdiction
`
`against Defendants in this case. First, as stated above, Paragon has failed to establish that
`
`Defendants’ presence in Oregon resulted from their own conduct. Second, the burden on
`
`Defendants to litigate in Oregon would be substantial given that all of Defendants’ potential
`
`witnesses are located in New York. Third, with respect to conflicts, there is a forum-
`
`selection and choice of law provision in the Agreement, which weighs in favor of exercising
`
`jurisdiction in New York. Fourth, any interest Oregon has in adjudicating disputes involving
`
`its own residents is outweighed by the fact that Paragon’s residence (although not its state of
`
`incorporation) is the sole contact this case has with Oregon. The remaining three factors all
`
`Page 9 ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
`SAWAYA AQUEBOGUE, LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`Gordon &: Rees LLP
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1575
`Portland, OR 97204
`Telephone: (503) 222-1075
`Facsimile: (503) 616-3600
`
`

`
`Case 3:15—cv—00189-PK Document 20
`
`Filed 03/23/15 Page 15 of 28
`
`weigh in favor of dismissal because of the venue and choice of law provisions to which both
`
`parties agreed.
`
`Because Paragon has failed to plead facts sufficient to show that it has met the require-
`
`ments for specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the above-captioned case should be
`
`dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
`
`II.
`
`PARAGON’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE VENUE IS
`
`IMPROPER IN OREGON
`
`Not only does Paragon’s Complaint fail to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendants
`
`in this Court, but venue is improper as well; thus dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). In diversity cases, venue is proper in the district where all
`
`defendants reside or “where substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
`
`claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b). Paragon has the burden of showing that venue is
`
`properly laid. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing, 598 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.
`
`1979); Gaston v. Facebook, Inc, No. 3:12-CV-0063-ST, 2012 WL 629868, at *6 (D. Or.
`
`Feb. 2, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:12-CV-00063-ST, 2012 WL
`
`610005 (D. Or. Feb. 24, 2012). “When there are multiple parties and/or multiple claims in an
`
`action, the plaintiff must establish that venue is proper as to each defendant and as to each
`
`claim.” Mulrimin USA, Inc. v. Walco Internation, Inc., No. CV F 06-0226 AWI SMS, 2006
`
`WL 1046964, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2006); accord SoccerSpecific.com v. World Class
`
`Coaching, Inc., No. CIV. 08-6l09—TC, 2008 WL 4960232, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 18, 2008).
`
`Pa