Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`Case No. C19-1879RSM
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
`ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`AQUARIAN FOUNDATION,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`BRUCE KIMBERLY LOWNDES, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Allen M. and Anne S. Jenne’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. #67.
`
`Plaintiff Aquarian Foundation (“AF”) opposes. Dkt. #78. Given the limited nature of this
`
`Motion, the Court has determined that the entire set of alleged facts need not be recited.
`
`As an initial matter, the Court finds that the instant Motion is procedurally proper given
`
`that these Defendants have not filed an Answer to AF’s Amended Complaint, which was filed
`
`with leave of the Court during the briefing on this Motion. No party has asked for leave to re-
`
`brief these issues and the Court finds that such is entirely unnecessary given the limited
`
`changes to the Complaint’s allegations against these Defendants. In any event, the Court could
`
`also convert Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to a ruling on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 7
`
` 
`
`and adopt the analysis below under the identical standard. Again, this is unnecessary because
`
`of the filing of the Amended Complaint.
`
`AF’s 20-page Amended Complaint barely mentions these Defendants. Dkt. #73. It
`
`states that Defendant Allen Jenne “is a former Spiritual Leader of Plaintiff, and was removed
`
`for cause from Spiritual Leadership in the Church, during which all of his privileges were
`
`revoked.” Dkt. #73 at 4 (emphasis in original). He is alleged to have “willfully sponsored,
`
`assisted, supported, helped to conceal, and otherwise enable acts by [Defendant Bruce
`
`Kimberly Lowndes] herein.” Id. Specifics are lacking. For example, Allen Jenne is accused of
`
`“continu[ing] to sympathetically communicate with and knowingly encourage and assist
`
`[Defendant Bruce Kimberly Lowndes], receiving select reports and invitations regarding
`
`[Lowndes’s] anti-Aquarian activities and openly and knowingly encouraging them…” Id.
`
`Details on Anne Jenne are even more lacking. She is believed to have assisted Allen Jenne by
`
`participating in communications as described above. Id.
`
`The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants violated AF’s copyrights and stole
`
`trade secrets by assisting Defendant Bruce Kimberly Lowndes as his “cohorts.” According to
`
`AF, Bruce Kimberly Lowndes has “published on-line e-mails to his cohorts in which he
`
`describes how his cohorts must subvert Aquarian’s published and unpublished works, and has
`
`named Defendants Allen and Anne Jenne [] in such e-mails.” Id. at 10. AF alleges that Allen
`
`and Anne Jenne had access to copyrighted works “during a long period of time, and therefore,
`
`have either copied or taken copies that were entrusted to them, and ultimately provided to
`
`[Defendant Bruce Kimberly Lowndes], many of these items.” Id. at 12. Later AF pleads that
`
`these Defendants converted its property by using mere labels and conclusions. Id. at 17.
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 3 of 7
`
` 
`
`These Defendants have not lived in Washington State since 1975; they currently live in
`
`North Carolina. Dkts. #68 and #69. They deny having requested or acquired access to AF
`
`materials in or from the State of Washington since being excommunicated in 1999, or
`
`soliciting, advertising, or disseminating any AF information in this state. Id.
`
`“In opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
`
`plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” CollegeSource, Inc. v.
`
`AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). “Where, as here, the defendant’s
`
`motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, ‘the plaintiff need only
`
`make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010)).
`
`A plaintiff may not simply rest on the “bare allegations of [the] complaint.” Schwarzenegger v.
`
`Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Jobar Int'l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977)). But uncontroverted allegations must be
`
`taken as true, and “[c]onflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be
`
`resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id.
`
`Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper if permitted by a state’s
`
`long-arm statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate federal due process.
`
`Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Bank of Coops., 103 F.3d 888, 893 (9th Cir. 1996). Since
`
`Washington’s long arm statute reaches only as far as the Due Process Clause, the Court need
`
`only analyze whether the exercise of jurisdiction would comply with due process. Omeluk v.
`
`Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 269 (9th Cir. 1995). For the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction to satisfy due process, a nonresident defendant, if not present in the forum, must
`
`have “minimum contacts” with the forum such that the assertion of jurisdiction “does not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 4 of 7
`
` 
`
`offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`
`326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
`
`federal district court may exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction. See
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80
`
`L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984). To establish general jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
`
`defendant has sufficient contacts to “constitute the kind of continuous and systematic general
`
`business contacts that approximate physical presence.” Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v.
`
`Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). This court uses the following three-part test to analyze whether a party’s “minimum
`
`contacts” meet the due process standard for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction: (1)
`
`The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some
`
`transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully
`
`avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the
`
`benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to
`
`the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with
`
`fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
`
`“If any of the three requirements is not satisfied, jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the
`
`defendant of due process of law.” Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 270
`
`(9th Cir. 1995). While all three requirements must be met, this court has stated that in its
`
`consideration of the first two prongs, “[a] strong showing on one axis will permit a lesser
`
`showing on the other.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433
`
`F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 5 of 7
`
` 
`
`AF claims it has made a prima facie case of general personal jurisdiction based on the
`
`fact that these Defendants’ continuously lived in Washington until 1975 and did business in this
`
`state up until 1999 when they were excommunicated. Dkt. #78 at 9–11. The Court finds that
`
`living in this state 45 years ago cannot serve as the sole basis for continuing general personal
`
`jurisdiction in perpetuity. The allegations of business dealings in this state are entirely too
`
`vague to show continuous business contacts, and in any event appear to have stopped over 20
`
`years ago. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of
`
`general personal jurisdiction.
`
`As for specific personal jurisdiction, AF argues:
`
`Aquarian’s claims arise out of or result from defendant Jennes’
`forum-related activities. They became trusted agents, helped to
`create and acquire the copyrighted works that are the subject of
`this litigation, applied for and received funds from Seattle to
`develop such works in the 1980’s and held the responsibility to
`safeguard these works for Seattle from 1977—1999 in New York.
`Their position, their knowledges, and their career as agents of
`Aquarian of Seattle were all forum-related activities. Only through
`those activities did they obtain access to and possession of
`copyrighted and secret works of Aquarian, including some of the
`oldest and rarest.
`.
`
`Dkt. #78 at 13. Attached declarations to AF’s briefing indicate that Anne Jenne is a Facebook
`
`friend of Defendant Bruce Kimberly Lowndes, and that her name has been included in an email
`
`as part of Lowndes’s “team.” See Dkt. #79. As the Court has become well aware, Defendant
`
`Lowndes lives and operates out of Tasmania. See Docket.
`
`
`
`The Court finds that the alleged facts and the other similarly deficient facts in AF’s
`
`briefing fail to make a prima facie case for specific personal jurisdiction. AF’s claims do not
`
`arise from Defendants’ lawful handling of copyrighted materials in Washington State several
`
`decades ago. The allegations of what these Defendants have done in violation of copyright law
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 6 of 7
`
` 
`
`are simply too vague and fail to mention contacts with Washington State. Defendants,
`
`presumably operating out of their North Carolina home, are alleged to have “sympathetically
`
`communicate[d] with and knowigly encourage[d] and assist[ed] [Defendant Bruce Kimberly
`
`Lowndes], receiving select reports and invitations regarding [Lowndes’s] anti-Aquarian
`
`activities and openly and knowingly encouraging them.” There is no clear allegation of contact
`
`with Washington, and even if Washington State was somehow connected with these
`
`Defendants’ sympathetic support and friendship with Defendant Lowndes, such contacts with a
`
`Tasmanian are insufficient to make a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction here in
`
`Washington State. Accordingly, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over these Defendants
`
`and will grant their Motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2).1
`
`
`
`Having dismissed these Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court need not
`
`rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The
`
`Court notes, however, that the claims against these Defendants are entirely too vague and
`
`conclusory. AF pleads mere labels and conclusions; these claims would be dismissed under the
`
`Twombly/Iqbal standard. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (The court is not
`
`required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”); Bell Atl. Corp.
`
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (The complaint need not include detailed allegations, but
`
`it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
`
`cause of action will not do.”).
`
`
`
`After having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court
`
`hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants Allen M. and Anne S. Jenne’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`
`1 The Court notes that Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., reminds the Court that it is the defendant’s
`contacts with the forum, and not his or her contacts with the plaintiff, that are relevant for a specific personal
`jurisdiction inquiry. See 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (“…we must look to the defendant's ‘own contacts’
`with the forum, not to the defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's connections to a forum.”)
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01879-RSM Document 120 Filed 08/20/20 Page 7 of 7
`
` 
`
`for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, Dkt. #67, is GRANTED. All
`
`claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED.
`
`DATED this 20th day of August, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`
`RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
`CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ALLEN AND ANNE JENNE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - 7
`
`