Gelasio v. Zafar

── Gelasio v. Zafar ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN GELASIO, No. 24-7277 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-01555-JSC v. MEMORANDUM* HARIS BIN ZAFAR; PROJECT ETHER LIMITED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 10, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Kevin Gelasio and Defendant Haris Bin Zafar collaborated to create co-Defendant Project Ether Limited (“Project Ether”), a digital art project involving the creation and sale of non-fungible tokens, also known as NFTs. Gelasio alleges that he contributed over $750,000 to Defendants in return for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. promises that he would be repaid and that he would have a share in the project’s proceeds. According to his Complaint, when it came time for Gelasio to be repaid, Bin Zafar and Project Ether did not pay him. Gelasio also alleges that Bin Zafar surreptitiously recorded a conference call Gelasio was on and posted it to YouTube. Gelasio, a California resident, sued Defendants in the Northern District of California, bringing a variety of claims including breach of contract and tort claims. Bin Zafar is a resident of the United Kingdom, and Project Ether is incorporated in Hong Kong and has its primary place of business in the United Kingdom. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. Gelasio appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 749–50 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc). We use a three-part test to analyze specific personal jurisdiction:1 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the 1 There is no argument in this case that Defendants are subject to general personal jurisdiction in California. This disposition evaluates specific personal jurisdiction over both Defendants jointly because that is how the issue was briefed by the parties. 2 24-7277  privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. Id. at 750–51 (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)). If Gelasio carries his burden of satisfying the first two prongs, then the burden shifts to Defendants to demonstrate that asserting jurisdiction over them would be unreasonable. Id. at 751. We use the Calder effects test to analyze whether a tort was purposefully directed to the forum state. Id. (citing Cal