GOOD JOB GAMES BILISM YAZILIM VE PAZARLAMA A.S., DBA Good Job Games v. SAYGAMES, LLC, a Belarusian Business Entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOOD JOB GAMES BILISM YAZILIM
VE PAZARLAMA A.S., DBA Good Job
Games,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAYGAMES, LLC, a Belarusian Business
Entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16123
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-07916-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 27, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and LAMBERTH,** District
Judge.
Good Job Games (“GJG”), a Turkish company, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of its complaint against SayGames, LLC (“SayGames”), a Belarusian
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge for
the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
company, for lack of personal jurisdiction, in California and the United States. GJG
also appeals the district court’s denial of its request for leave to conduct jurisdictional
discovery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it did not substantively consider the issue of
discovery.
“Discovery should ordinarily be granted where ‘pertinent facts bearing on the
question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the
facts is necessary.’” Butcher’s Union Loc. No. 498, United Food & Com. Workers
v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted).
In requesting leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, GJG presented
proposed interrogatories and requests for production. GJG sought specific
information from SayGames, including the downloads of, revenue derived from, and
distribution agreements regarding Cannon Shot! in the United States; SayGames’
efforts to advertise, market, license, commercialize, or profit from Cannon Shot! in
the United States; and SayGames’ ability to engage in country-specific distribution
of Cannon Shot!, including the ability to choose distribution in the United States. In
a number of our recent decisions regarding personal jurisdiction and Internet-based
companies, we have made significant reference to the type of information that GJG
seeks in discovery. See AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201, 1210–11
(9th Cir. 2020); Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. 2011); see also Ayla, LLC v. Ayla Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F. 4th 972, 980–83 (9th Cir.
2021).
The question of jurisdiction in the Internet age is not well-settled. Because
the record is insufficiently developed to resolve personal jurisdiction, and because
“further discovery . . . might well demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis
for jurisdiction,” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd.,
328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003), we reverse and remand for jurisdictional
discovery.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --