Crystal Cruises, Inc.; Crystal Ship Three Bahamas Limited v. Moteurs Leroy-Somer S. A.; Leroy-Somer; Emerson Electric Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRYSTAL CRUISES, INC.; CRYSTAL
SHIP THREE BAHAMAS LIMITED,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MOTEURS LEROY-SOMER S. A.;
LEROY-SOMER; EMERSON
ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55338
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08736-PSG-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 7, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Plaintiffs Crystal Cruises, Inc. and Crystal Ship Three (Bahamas) Limited
(collectively, “Crystal”) appeal the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing French
corporate defendants Moteurs Leroy-Somer S.A. (“Moteurs”) and Leroy-Somer for
lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Emerson
Electric Company (“Emerson”); and (3) denying Crystal’s request for additional
discovery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s rulings regarding personal jurisdiction
and summary judgment. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730
F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the district court’s denial of Crystal’s
request for additional discovery for an abuse of discretion. Michelman v. Lincoln
Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2012).
The district court properly determined that Crystal failed to establish that
Moteurs and Leroy-Somer had adequate “continuous and systematic” contacts with
California to support assertion of general personal jurisdiction. Goodyear Dunlop
Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2854 (2011) (elaborating on the
circumstances that warrant an exercise of general jurisdiction). Crystal’s argument
that Emerson’s in-state contacts should be attributed to Moteurs and Leroy-Somer
for jurisdictional purposes lacks merit. Corporations are treated as separate and
2

-- 2 of 4 --

distinct entities and “the presence of one . . . in a forum state may not be attributed
to the other” for determining jurisdiction. Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N.
Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007). Crystal fails to demonstrate that any
exception to this rule applies. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909,
920-23 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining the “alter ego” and “agency” tests used to
support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign parent company by
virtue of its relationship to a subsidiary), cert. granted, 133 S.Ct. 1995 (2013).
Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the French subsidiaries for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2854.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment for Emerson because
Crystal failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact relevant to Emerson being
vicariously liable for allegedly defective generators that Moteurs designed and
manufactured. C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.,
213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the burden “rests upon the party
asserting the existence of the agency and seeking to charge the principal with the
representation of the agent”) (quoting Inglewood Teachers Ass’n v. Pub. Emp’t
Relations Bd., 227 Cal. App. 3d 767, 780 (1991)); see also Am. Way Cellular, Inc.
v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 216 Cal. App. 4th 1040, 1052-53 (2013).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Crystal’s motion to
reopen discovery before considering Emerson’s motion for summary judgment.
The denial of a request for a continuance of summary judgment pending further
discovery is an abuse of discretion “only if the party requesting a continuance can
show that allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary
judgment.” Lincoln, 685 F.3d at 892. Crystal has failed to make this showing.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --