Geohot has updated his website with a Supplemental TRO. It outlines various reasons for why geohot can still be tried within the California jurisdiction.
1. Purposeful Injection
“The court’s determination that defendant has purposefully directed its activities toward California is sufficient to resolve this factor in favor of jurisdiction.” AutoDesk,2004 WL 603382 at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2004). As established above, Hotz engaged in unlawfulacts directed at SCEA in California. This factor weighs in favor of finding personal jurisdiction.
2. Burden on Defending In This Forum
Unless “inconvenience is so great as to constitute a deprivation of due process, it will not overcome clear justifications for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Panavision Int’l LLP,141 F. 3d at 1323; Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126, 128-29(9th Cir.1995) (emphasis added). Although Hotz resides in New Jersey, any inconvenience in litigating in California certainly does not rise to the level of “any deprivation of due process.” Also, Hotz has already secured counsel in the Northern District of California.
3. Extent of Conflict with Sovereignty of Hotz’s State
There is no concern that this district’s exercise of jurisdiction would conflict with the sovereignty of New Jersey, where Hotz purportedly resides. See Autodesk, 2004 WL603382 at *8 (“the sovereignty barrier is not particularly high when defendant is merely from another state”); Panavision, Int’l., L.P., 141 F.3d at 1323.
4. Forum State’s Interest
California has a strong interest in protecting residents who have been tortuouslyinjured. Panavision Int’l., L.P, 141 F. 3d at 1324. SCEA is based in California.Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
5. Effective Resolution of the Controversy
Because SCEA is based in California, Hotz’s unlawful conduct and the resulting harm impacts SCEA here in California. And one of the other defendants, “Bushing,”resides in this district. Gilliland Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. C, D. Moreover, much of the evidence and witnesses will likely be in California, not any other forum. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
6. Convenience and Effective Relief for Plaintiff
The Northern District is a convenient forum for SCEA’s as its principal place of business is located here. Most of the evidence and SCEA’s witnesses are also located in this district. This factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
7. Alternative Forum
This factor favors personal jurisdiction in California because both SCEA and Hotz’s co-defendant Bushing are located here in the Northern District of California.Although an alternative forum would be convenient for Hotz, litigating this case in California is more practical because of the facts and parties involved. Moreover, all the other factors listed above weigh in favor of jurisdiction in this District.On balance, these factors weigh in favor of litigating SCEA’s claims in this district. Hotz cannot present a “compelling case” that this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and deprive him of due process.
Source:http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/01/sonys-response-to-judges-doubt-of-jurisdiction/#axzz1BSTPUDfh
1. Purposeful Injection
“The court’s determination that defendant has purposefully directed its activities toward California is sufficient to resolve this factor in favor of jurisdiction.” AutoDesk,2004 WL 603382 at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2004). As established above, Hotz engaged in unlawfulacts directed at SCEA in California. This factor weighs in favor of finding personal jurisdiction.
2. Burden on Defending In This Forum
Unless “inconvenience is so great as to constitute a deprivation of due process, it will not overcome clear justifications for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Panavision Int’l LLP,141 F. 3d at 1323; Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d 126, 128-29(9th Cir.1995) (emphasis added). Although Hotz resides in New Jersey, any inconvenience in litigating in California certainly does not rise to the level of “any deprivation of due process.” Also, Hotz has already secured counsel in the Northern District of California.
3. Extent of Conflict with Sovereignty of Hotz’s State
There is no concern that this district’s exercise of jurisdiction would conflict with the sovereignty of New Jersey, where Hotz purportedly resides. See Autodesk, 2004 WL603382 at *8 (“the sovereignty barrier is not particularly high when defendant is merely from another state”); Panavision, Int’l., L.P., 141 F.3d at 1323.
4. Forum State’s Interest
California has a strong interest in protecting residents who have been tortuouslyinjured. Panavision Int’l., L.P, 141 F. 3d at 1324. SCEA is based in California.Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
5. Effective Resolution of the Controversy
Because SCEA is based in California, Hotz’s unlawful conduct and the resulting harm impacts SCEA here in California. And one of the other defendants, “Bushing,”resides in this district. Gilliland Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. C, D. Moreover, much of the evidence and witnesses will likely be in California, not any other forum. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
6. Convenience and Effective Relief for Plaintiff
The Northern District is a convenient forum for SCEA’s as its principal place of business is located here. Most of the evidence and SCEA’s witnesses are also located in this district. This factor weighs in favor of personal jurisdiction.
7. Alternative Forum
This factor favors personal jurisdiction in California because both SCEA and Hotz’s co-defendant Bushing are located here in the Northern District of California.Although an alternative forum would be convenient for Hotz, litigating this case in California is more practical because of the facts and parties involved. Moreover, all the other factors listed above weigh in favor of jurisdiction in this District.On balance, these factors weigh in favor of litigating SCEA’s claims in this district. Hotz cannot present a “compelling case” that this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and deprive him of due process.
Source:http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/01/sonys-response-to-judges-doubt-of-jurisdiction/#axzz1BSTPUDfh
