You etalv.Japan United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and DOES1–1000,inclusive, INDUSTRIES, INC.;SANKEISHIMBUN,CO.,LTD.; INC.; MITSUI&CO.LTD.;OKAMOTO MITSUBISHI GROUP;MITSUI&CO.(U.S.A.), MITSUBISHI CORPORATION(AMERICA); & SUMITOMOMETALCORPORATION; SUMITOMO METALU.S.A.,INC.;NIPPONSTEEL HITACHI AMERICA,LTD.;NIPPONSTEEL& MOTOR SALES,U.S.A.,INC.;HITACHI,LTD.; INC.; TOYOTAMOTORCORPORATION; MOTOR CO.,LTD.;NISSANNORTHAMERICA, NIPPON YUSENKABUSHIKIKAISHA;NISSAN SHINZO ABE;NYKLINE(NORTHAMERICA); JAPAN; HIROHITO;AKIHITO;NOBUSKEKISHI; v. situated, themselves andonbehalfofallotherssimilarly HE NAMYOUandKYUNGSOONKIM,for reasons statedbelow,defendant’smotion is and fordefamation, oneoftwentydefendantsmoves todismiss allclaims againstit.Forthe In thisputativeclassactionforcrimes againsthumanity duringtheSecondWorld War Defendants. Plaintiffs, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT INTRODUCTION G RANTED . / JURISDICTION LACK OFPERSONAL TO DISMISSFOR LTD.’S MOTION SHIMBUN, CO., DEFENDANT SANKEI ORDER GRANTING No. C15-03257WHA Dockets.Justia.com Doc. 122 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 by name. Plaintiffs donotdisputethatthe articlesdiscussedco English translationofthearticles. Sankeihasprovi defamatory articles. ThearticlesappearedonlyinJapane the “CoerciveRecruitment” were paidfortheirwork.Editorial, statements of politicalleadersassertingthat thecomfort women hadvolunteered andthatthey for anendtoreferencesthe“coerciverecruitment” ofcomfort women, whichreferredto news articleaboutcomfort women. also offerssubscriptionstoitsnewspaperovertheInternet. number ofarticlesinitsownnewspaperdistributedLosAngeles(KondoDecl.¶12).Sankei offers alicensetoanindependentpublisher,whichpermits thatpublishertoreprintalimited to Sankei’snewspaperintheUnitedStates,incl an independentthird-partysubscriptionservice(OCS)sellsatotaloftwenty-onesubscriptions English. AlthoughSankeidoesnot,itself,conductanysalesorsolicitationintheUnitedStates, amendments totheJapanese Constitution(unrelatedtocomfort women), whichitpublishedin publishes itsnewspaperonlyinJapanesewiththeexceptionofonearticleaboutproposed States whoworkasaffiliates of newsbureauslocatedhere,includingoneinCalifornia. Sankei of businessinTokyoandmajor officesinOsaka.Sankeiemploys sixreportersintheUnited slaves duringtheSecondWorld War, fewofwhom survivetoday. stations” inJapan.TheJapanesemilitary forcedover200,000Koreanwomen toserveassex forced intoservitude,andexploitedassexslavesforthebenefitofJapanesesoldiersat“comfort of Korea.TheywereabductedbytheJapanesegovernment duringtheSecondWorld War, women wasafiction. published anewsarticledetailingresearcher’s conclusions thattheforcibletakingofcomfort 1 Intheircomplaint, plaintiffsprovidedhyper Plaintiffs’ claims againstSankeiariseoutofthepublicationtwoeditorialsandone Defendant SankeiShimbun, Co.,Ltd., isaJapanesecorporationwithitsprincipalplace Plaintiffs HeNam YouandKyungSoonKim areresidentsandcitizensoftheRepublic Seizing ComfortWomenbyForceisFiction.U.S. Journalistsays“South , S ANKEI 1 InNovember 2014,Sankeipublishedaneditorialcalling Opinion —CounterargumentstoRemovetheDisgrace of S HIMBUN STATEMENT ded anEnglishtranslation(Fukuhara Decl.,Exhs.4–6). mfort women onlygenerally,withoutmentioning plaintiffs links towebpagesthatdisplayed theallegedly se onthosewebpages.Plaintiffs havenotprovidedan , Nov.11,2014.InApril2015,Sankei 2 uding fourinCalifornia.Additionally,Sankei United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 hearings nextmonth. Plaintiffshavenotyet servedtheremaining twelvedefendants. motion for leavetoamend ispending.Sixotherdefe following claims againstSankei:(1)aidingandab kidnapping ofKoreanwomen duringtheSecondWorl statements. TheyalsoallegethatSankei’s publicationsseventyyearslateraidedandabettedthe prime minister ofJapan,defendantShinzoAbe,topublishtheseallegedlydefamatory against it.Thisorderfollowsfullbriefingandoralargument. Racketeer InfluencedandCorruptOrganization Statute, (2)defamation, (3)intentionalinfliction Studies Textbooks Editorial, misleading descriptionsofthecoerciverecruitment ofcomfort women from Japanesetextbooks. 2015. InJanuary2015,Sankeipublishedaneditorialthatcalledforthedeletionofallegedly jurisdiction inthisforum. to dismiss allclaims againstit.ThisorderfindsthatSankeicannotbesubjecttopersonal plaintiffs’ claims againstitsufferfrom substa not subjecttopersonaljurisdictioninthisforum. Additionally,Sankeiarguesthateachof United States(KondoDecl. ¶19). Japanese corporation.Ithasnotappointedanagent toreceiveprocessonitsbehalfinthe agent authorizedbyappointment serviceofprocess..”Sankeiisa ofbylawtoreceive of thesummons andofthecomplaint toanofficer,amanaging orgeneralagent,anyother in thisaction.Rule4(h)(1)(B)requiresthatacorporation must beserved“bydeliveringacopy Korea isPuppetofChina.”NoEvidenceinU.S.NationalArchives 2 Onedefendant,Mitsui&Co. (U.S.A.),Inc.,hasal Plaintiffs allegethatSankeipublishedthesearticlesasapartofconspiracywiththe .S 1. Sankei arguesthatplaintiffshavenoteffectedproperserviceofprocessanditis Sankei contendsthatplaintiffsdidnotproperlyserve itwiththesummons andcomplaint Advocate —CorrectionofMisleadingDescriptionsisMatter-of-Course:Social ERVICE OF , S ANKEI S P HIMBUN ROCESS , Jan.18,2015. . ANALYSIS ndants havependingmotions todismiss, scheduled for ntive deficiencies.Accordingly,Sankeimoves 3 Act. Sankeinowmoves todismiss allclaims of emotional distress,and(4)violationofthe ready successfullymoved todismiss. Plaintiffs’ etting tortureinviolationoftheAlienTorts d War. Specifically,plaintiffsassertthe 2 , S ANKEI N EWS , Apr.20, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 jurisdiction challenge. decline toruleontheservice-of-processissueandwillinsteadproceedpersonal yet beimmune toserviceofprocesshere.Thisprospectseems sounfairthatthisorderwill to concludethatanoverseascompany couldsendemployees toworkintheUnitedStatesand its sixUnitedStates-basedemployees isanofficeroramanaging agent.Itwouldbetroubling effectuate properserviceonSankeiwouldbethroughtheHagueConvention,becausenoneof Aoki Supp.Decl.¶3). denote hisrelationshiptoSankei’sreportersthatworkatFujisankei(KondoSupp.Decl.¶12; agent ofSankei,althoughhisbusinesscardindicatesthathehasanaffiliationwithSankeito Aoki whenplaintiffs’counselapproached.St of Fujisankei.AokiisnotanofficeroragentSankei. complaint toNobuyukiAoki,whoisareporterforSankei’snewspaperworkingasanaffiliate accompanied byaKoreantelevisioncrew,handedthesummons andanincomplete copyofthe of FujiMediaHoldings,Inc.,whichholdsaminority stakeinSankei.Counselforplaintiffs, Fujisankei Communications International,Inc.,inWashington, D.C.,Fujisankeiisasubsidiary corporation withitsprincipal placeofbusinessinTokyoandmajor officesinOsaka.Sankei’s Operations, S.A.v.Brown systematic’ astorenderthem essentiallyathome intheforum State.” any andallclaims against them whentheiraffiliationswiththeStateareso‘continuous and may assertgeneraljurisdiction overforeign(sister-stateorforeign-country)corporationstohear .P 2. At oralargument, thattheonlywayplaintiffscould counselforSankeiindicated Plaintiffs contendthatScottStewart,anassistantmanager atFujisankeicame toassist Plaintiffs attempted toserveSankeiwiththesummons andcomplaint intheoffices of Plaintiffs contendthatSankeiissubjectto An equallyseriousproblem islackofpersonal jurisdiction. .GeneralJurisdiction. A. ERSONAL , 564U.S.___,131S.Ct. 2846,2851(2011).SankeiisaJapanese J URISDICTION . ewart isnotemployed bySankei,norishean 4 general jurisdictioninCalifornia.“Acourt Goodyear DunlopTires United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 regarding wartime conductas iftheyhadbeenproperlypled. (U.S.A.) failed(Dkt.No.76). Accordingly,thisorde political-question andtime-bar issuesdiscussed intheor allegations wouldrequireaseparate personaljurisd on PearlHarborbyproviding materials aswellpo Sankei “activelyparticipated in thecommission ofwar crimes including [the]invasionofChinaandattack a defamatory articleinCalifornia, if thedefamatory materials targetedaplaintiff thatlivedin newspaper issubjecttopersonaljurisdictionbased onthedistributionofonlythirteencopies 584 F.2d893,896(9thCir.1978).Ontheother hand, ourcourtofappealshasheldthata publication throughindependentnewsdealers. between thedefendantsandforum statewasthecirculationof156copiesalibelous ¶¶ 8–10). California orwiththeUnitedStatesasawholethat givesrisetoplaintiffsclaims (KondoDecl. Sankei itselfhasnotcreatedanycontactwith independent third-partydistributors.Thus, content (whichdoesgiverisetoplaintiffs’cl Sankei’s news-gatheringintheUnitedStateshad Sankei doesnotadvertiseorsellitsnewspaperhere,noritsolicitadvertisinghere. Assocs., Inc. rest solelyonthepleadingstoestablishpersonaljurisdiction. contradicted thefactualallegationsregardingjurisdictionincomplaint, plaintiffsmay not claims againstSankeiariseoutofthesame conduct. jurisdiction. general jurisdiction,anditscontactswiththeUnitedStatesasawholearesufficienttoestablish personal jurisdictioninanystate,ifitisnotsubjecttostate’scourtsof Sankei isplainlynot“athome” inCalifornia. only directcontactwithCaliforniaisthepresenceofasinglereporterbasedinLosAngeles. 3 IntheiroppositiontoSankei’smotion todismiss (but Our courtofappealshasfoundpersonaljurisdictionlackingwherethe“solecontact” Sankei’s onlydirectactivityintheUnitedStatesisnews-gatheringofsixemployees. For claims arisingunder federallaw,ashere,anoverseasdefendantmay besubjectto , 557F.2d1280,1287(9thCir.1977). Holland Am.LineInc.v.WartsilaN.Am., .SpecificJurisdiction. B. iction analysis,thoseclaims wouldraisethe same litical propaganda”(Pls.’Opp. at13).Althoughsuch r doesnotaddressplaintiffs’ arguments intheirbrief aims) reachestheUnitedStates,butonlybywayof der dismissing plaintiffs’claims againstMitsui&Co. 5 Church ofScientologyCaliforniav.Adams no relationshiptoplaintiffs’claims. Sankei’s 3 notintheircomplaint), plaintiffsassertthat Additionally,becauseSankeihas , 485F.3d450(9thCir.2007).All Data Disc,Inc.v.Sys.Tech. , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 http://www.manta.com/c/mtmdkwx/sankei-shimbun- M [its] activityinasubstantialwaytotheforum state.” “‘something more’ toindicatethatthedefendantpurposefully(albeitelectronically)directed Cybersell, Inc.v. goods andservicesontheInternet”isnotsufficienttosubjectapartypersonaljurisdiction. because itofferssubscriptionsontheInternet.“Mereadvertisement orsolicitationforsaleof to personaljurisdictionhere. contacts inCalifornia, sufficiently relatetoplai Accordingly, neitherSankei’saggregatecontactswiththeUnitedStatesasawholenorits The impact ofthestoriesinquestionoccurredprimarily inKoreaandJapan,nothere. Daily News,L.P. California orwheretheprimary impact ofthedefamatory storywasfeltinCalifornia. example itoffers isanarticlein its articlesinEnglishandtherebytargetsreadersthroughouttheUnitedStates,butonly relationship toSankei.Thearticlein thousand andonemillion dollars. dollars inannualrevenueandtheWashington D.C.office generatedbetweenfivehundred records. Manta.com estimated thatSankei’sCa information aboutbusinessesthroughouttheUnitedStates,purportedlydrawnfrom public articles ontheInternettowarrantapplicationof personaljurisdictionintheUnitedStates. plaintiffs havenotallegedthatSankeihasdone“something more” thanmerely offeringits Sankei’s articlesareonlyavailableinJapanese(KondoSupp.Decl.¶¶5–7).Accordingly, revenue estimates. revenue estimates, andplaintiffsofferednoindicationthatManta.com isareliablesourceof ANTA . COM 4

Plaintiffs arguethatSankeimust besubject Our plaintiffs—residentsofSouthKorea Finally, plaintiffsciteathird-partywebsite,Manta.com, whichmaintains adatabaseof Sankei ShimbunL.A.Bureau ,

http://www.manta.com/c/mw28cq3/sankei-sh , 95F.3d829,834(9thCir.1996). , M The JapanTimes , 130F.3d414,418(9thCir.1997).Rather,theremust be 4 TheManta.com profilesdidnot indicateasourceforthe ANTA The JapanTimes . COM l-a-bureau (lastvisitedNov.23, 2015); , ntiffs’ claims such thatSankeicouldbesubject 6 lifornia officegeneratedfifty-seventhousand imbun (lastvisitedNov.23,2015). , whichisaseparateorganizationwithno tospecific jurisdictionintheUnitedStates Ibid. lack anyrelationshiptotheUnitedStates. was PlaintiffsarguethatSankeioffers about Sankei,not Sankei Shimbun by Sankei. Gordy v. , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: Nvme 4 05 Dated: November 24,2015. personal jurisdiction. issues. Consequently,Manta.com fallsawayasaconsideration. plaintiffs’ counselsaidhedidnotwishtoundertakeanydiscoveryintopersonaljurisdiction revenue datawouldplausiblysustainpersona discovery (from Sankei)byplaintiffstoestablishpersonaljurisdictionifitwereshownthatthe IT ISSOORDERED. Plaintiffs’ claims againstSankei Shimbun, Co.,Ltd.,arehereby Although Manta.com ishearsay,theinformation thereinwouldbeusabletojustify CONCLUSION l jurisdiction.Atoralargument, however, 7 U W NITED ILLIAM S TATES A LSUP D D ISMISSED ISTRICT forlackof J UDGE