BEOM SU LEE V. TV CHOSUN CORP., ET AL, No. 23-55450 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEOM SU LEE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-55450 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00933-DSF-KS v. MEMORANDUM* TV CHOSUN CORP., DBA TV Chosun; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Beom Su Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lee’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction because Lee failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that defendants had such continuous and systematic contacts with California to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over defendants. See LNS Enters. LLC v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing requirements for jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2)); see also Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We consistently have held that a mere web presence is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”). Timonthy B. Yoo and Christopher J. Lee’s motion to withdraw as counsel (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted. Appellees’ request to strike portions of the supplemental excerpts of record, set forth in the answering brief, is denied as unnecessary. Appellees’ request for costs, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice to the filing of a separate, noticed motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. AFFIRMED. 2 23-55450

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.