Hyperlync Fails to Establish Personal Jurisdiction, Says T-Mobile Reply

Hyperlync Technologies doesn’t “come close” to meeting its burden to establish personal jurisdiction in California, and so its breach of contract complaint against T-Mobile should be dismissed, said the carrier’s reply Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00734) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Hyperlync alleged in a Jan. 31 class action that T-Mobile walked away from agreements it struck with Sprint to develop a cloud storage product called “Unlimited Cloud” when T-Mobile completed the Sprint buy in April 2020 (see 2302020061). Hyperlync seeks the recovery of $6.2 million in Unlimited Cloud development costs, but hasn’t and can’t “allege or provide facts sufficient” for the court “to exercise jurisdiction over T-Mobile in this case,” said T-Mobile’s March 31 motion to dismiss (see 2304030001). Hyperlync’s opposition argues only that T-Mobile’s retail business in California subjects it to general jurisdiction, and that the court has specific jurisdiction over T-Mobile because a former Hyperlync employee lived in California “during the operative time period,” said T-Mobile’s reply. “Neither argument establishes personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile.”