Junior Larry Hillbroom, an individual v. Barry J. Israel, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNIOR LARRY HILLBROOM, an
individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BARRY J. ISRAEL, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16047
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00031
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Ramona V. Manglona, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Junior Larry Hillbroom filed this action in the District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands, alleging that Barry Israel and others fraudulently induced
FILED
MAR 28 2014
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 3 --

Hillbroom’s representative to enter into a retainer agreement for legal services. The
district court granted Israel’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and then entered judgment on that order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). We have jurisdiction over
Hillbroom’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 48 U.S.C. § 1824, and reverse and
remand.
Hillbroom established a prima facie case for exercising specific jurisdiction.
Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring a “prima facie”
showing of jurisdictional facts when, as here, the district court does not conduct an
evidentiary hearing). First, Hillbroom established that Israel deliberately “engaged
in significant activities” within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475–76 (1985). The
Amended Retainer Agreement required Israel to represent Hillbroom in CNMI legal
proceedings and to protect Hillbroom’s interests in assets located in the CNMI.
Moreover, Israel directed his activities at the CNMI because the Amended Retainer
Agreement executed in Guam provided Israel with a greater financial stake in property
located in the CNMI. See Dole Foods Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111–12 (9th Cir.
2002). Consequently, Israel’s conduct satisfies the first prong of the specific
jurisdiction test regardless of whether we apply the “purposeful availment” test
2

-- 2 of 3 --

traditionally applied to suits arising in contract or the “purposeful direction” test
traditionally applied to suits arising in tort. The significance of those forum ties is not
negated simply because Hillbroom was not a resident of the CNMI when he filed suit.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 779–80 (1984).
Second, Hillbroom’s claim “arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-
related activities.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Israel’s promised performance in the CNMI was an
essential feature of the Amended Retainer Agreement and is the basis for fees
collected under the Agreement for which Hillbroom now seeks recoupment.
Third, Israel has not established that asserting jurisdiction would be
unreasonable. Israel is a United States citizen who injected himself into CNMI affairs,
exercising jurisdiction would not conflict with the sovereignty of Hillbroom’s current
residence (Vietnam), the CNMI district court can resolve this dispute efficiently, and
hearing the case in the CNMI would provide convenient and effective relief. See Roth
v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 625 (9th Cir. 1991).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --