Rohde USA, Inc. v. Erich Rohde KG Schuhfabriken of Schwalmstadt

Full title: ROHDE USA, INC., a California corporation dba JPH Corporate; Jean Hug…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

32 F. App'x 250 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

32 Fed.Appx. 250 (9th Cir. 2002) ROHDE USA, INC., a California corporation dba JPH Corporate; Jean Hug, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. ERICH ROHDE KG SCHUHFABRIKEN OF SCHWALMSTADT, a German corporation; Rohde Shoes USA, a business entity, e/s/a Rohde Footwear Group, Inc.; Evert Rotteveel; F.O. Schenk; Erich Rohde, Defendants--Appellees. No. 00-57007. D.C. No. CV-00-00235-VAP. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 19, 2002

Submitted February 6, 2002 ^*.

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

American distributor brought suit against German manufacturer, its American subsidiary, and other individuals arising from alleged breach of exclusive distribution contract. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Virginia A. Phillips, J., dismissed action on defendants' motions for improper venue or lack of personal jurisdiction. American distributor appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) German venue provided for in parties' contract provided exclusive venue for any contract-based action against manufacturer, and (2) court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over American subsidiary, its employee, or employee of German manufacturer who never purposefully availed themselves of forum.

Affirmed.

Page 251.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding.

Before TROTT, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Plaintiffs Rohde USA, Inc. ("Rohde USA") and its president Jean Hug ("Hug") sued Erich Rohde KG Schuhfabriken of Schwalmstadt, Germany ("Rohde KG"), its American subsidiary Rohde Shoes USA ("Rohde Shoes"), Rohde Shoes employee Evert Rotteveel ("Rotteveel"), Rohde KG's export manager F.O. Schenk ("Schenk"), and Erich Rohde, the deceased former president of Rohde KG, for damages flowing from the alleged breach of an exclusive distribution contract between Rohde USA and Rohde KG. The district court dismissed the action for lack of proper venue as to Rohde KG and lack of personal jurisdiction over the other defendants. ¹

1 Although the district court transposed the bases for dismissing the claims in its order, the substance of its ruling is apparent from the text of its order.

The distribution contract between Rohde USA and Rohde KG contained the following provision: "Venue for both parties is the seat of Erich Rohde KG, Schwalmstadt/Germany." We agree with the district court that this provision set the exclusive venue for any contract-related suit in Schwalmstadt, Germany.

Further, Plaintiffs have provided no admissible evidence that Rohde Shoes, Rotteveel, or Schenk purposefully availed themselves of the California forum as required for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Thus, the district court properly dismissed the claims against these defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.