United States v. 2017-07-03 | 15-16283 | SALEH ELGHASEN V. RBS COMPUTER, INC. | nonprecedential |…

1
SALEH ELGHASEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RBS COMPUTER, INC., DBA Royal
Management Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-16283
D.C. Nos.
2:14-cv-01539-JAD-GWE
2:14 cv-01538-JAD-GWE
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER,** and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Saleh Elghasen appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his lawsuit
for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2). He contends that the District Court may exercise specific jurisdiction
over his case because RBS had contacts with Nevada that gave rise to his injury,
including its reporting his credit information to Experian, doing business with
Nevada entities, and directing a Nevada bankruptcy court to send proof-of-claim
notices to its Texas address. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and will affirm.
We review the District Court’s order de novo. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539
F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). However, Elghasen “bears the burden of
demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
The District Court properly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction
over RBS. RBS does not conduct business in Nevada, own property in Nevada,
have employees who work in Nevada, or direct communications to Nevada.
Contrary to Elghasen’s assertions, it was Family Finance, not RBS, that directed
the Nevada bankruptcy court to send proof-of-claim notices to RBS’s address in
Texas. Corporate separateness is a basic tenet of American corporate law, and
since Elghasen has not established that RBS and Family Finance are affiliated—

-- 2 of 3 --

3
let alone argued why we should pierce the veil separating them—we will not
impute Family Finance’s contact with the bankruptcy court to RBS. See Ranza v.
Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2015).
Taking that purported contact away, the only substantial contact Elghasen
alleges between Nevada and RBS that relates to his claims is that RBS
misreported the credit information of an individual it knew was a Nevada
resident. Elghasen, however, has not shown that RBS knew he was a Nevada
resident, and regardless, the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 134
S. Ct. 1115 (2014), establishes that this sort of contact is insufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction. Id. at 1125 (“Petitioner’s actions in Georgia did not create
sufficient contacts with Nevada simply because he allegedly directed his conduct
at plaintiffs whom he knew had Nevada connections.”). The conduct that gave
rise to Elghasen’s alleged injury is RBS’s act of sending inaccurate information
from its office in Texas to Experian, an entity with no Nevada offices. Thus
Walden controls; RBS’s “relevant conduct occurred entirely” outside Nevada
and “the mere fact that [its] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the
forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.” Id. at 1126.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --