FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERKUMPULAN INVESTOR CRISIS No. 12-35778
CENTER DRESSEL - WBG,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01786-JCC
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DANNY M.K. WONG, also known as
Wong Man Kee; et al.,
Defendants,
and
FRANK HO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 11, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff, Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel-WBG, appeals the
district court’s dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of the action against
Defendant Frank Ho. We have jurisdiction over Ho’s appeal because the district
court directed the entry of a separate, final judgment against Ho under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b). Reviewing de novo, Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004), we affirm.
1. Because it does not affect the outcome, we assume that Plaintiff’s
submissions—before the district court and on appeal—are admissible and properly
before us, and we disregard Ho’s declarations.
2. The district court correctly held that Plaintiff failed to establish
personal jurisdiction over Ho because he does not have constitutionally sufficient
"minimum contacts" with Washington. Id. at 801. In particular, Plaintiff has not
made a prima facie showing that Ho "expressly aimed" his conduct at Washington.
Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2012)
(citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)). Although Ho may have received
reports about the activities of Dressel Investment Ltd. and he may have
participated in some decision-making, his participation did not rise to the level of
the "guiding spirit" or "alter ego" of Dressel. See, e.g., RSL-3B-IL, Ltd. v.
Symetra Life Ins. Co. (In re Rapid Settlements, Ltd.), 271 P.3d 925, 931 (Wash.
2
Ct. App. 2012) (holding that one company was the alter ego of another where,
among other things, "the ownership of both entities has been held out to third
parties as identical with an identical place of business"). Nor do Plaintiff’s
allegations of fraud automatically pierce the corporate veil. See Harris Rutsky &
Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2003)
(requiring showings of "unity of interest and ownership . . . and . . . fraud"
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Rapid Settlements, 271
P.3d at 931 (inquiring into unity of interest). Finally, any alleged partnership
between Ho and Danny Wong is irrelevant because, under Washington law, Wong
acted as an agent of the partnership, but not an agent of each partner. See Wash.
Rev. Code § 25.05.100(1) ("Each partner is an agent of the partnership . . . ."); Sher
v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1366 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that, in states with
statutes identical in all relevant respects to Wash. Rev. Code § 25.05.100(1), the
actions of one partner do not impute to another partner for purposes of personal
jurisdiction).
3. We reject Plaintiff’s unsupported argument that Ho’s allegedly false
declaration requires that we exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional
discovery. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff
3
has not made "the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and
substantial prejudice." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
4