Alliance Labs LLC v. Stratus Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al
Filing
31
ORDER that Sonar's 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Sonar is DISMISSED from this action. Stratus' 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED. Stratus' alternative motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer to an alternative venue for the convenience of the witnesses and the parties is DENIED. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/24/2012.(LFIG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ALLIANCE LABS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STRATUS PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., and SONAR PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-00927 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motions at Dockets 12, 16]
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 12, defendant Sonar Products, Inc. (“Sonar”) moves pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. At docket 16, defendant Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Stratus”) has filed
a nearly identical motion. Both defendants move, in the alternative, to dismiss based on
improper venue or to transfer the case to an alternative venue for the convenience of
the parties and witnesses. Plaintiff Alliance Labs, LLC (“Alliance”) opposes both
motions at docket 23. Sonar’s reply is at docket 29. Stratus replies at docket 30. Oral
argument was not requested and would not assist the court.
1
2
II. BACKGROUND
Alliance is an Arizona company that markets and distributes enema products,
3
including the Enemeez Mini Enema, the Enemeez Plus Mini Enema, and the Docusol
4
Mini Enema. Stratus is a Florida corporation that markets and distributes competing
5
enema products such as the Vacuant Mini-Enema and the Vacuant Plus Mini-Enema.
6
Sonar is a New Jersey corporation that manufactures Vacuant and Vacuant Plus for
7
Stratus.
8
9
Alliance alleges that Stratus’s Vacuant products are “knock-offs” of its Enemeez
products. Alliance maintains that Stratus has targeted its customers and represented
10
Vacuant products to be less expensive than the Enemeez products, but equally
11
effective. Alliance alleges that Stratus uses packaging that is virtually indistinguishable
12
from the Enemeez packaging and that Stratus copied substantial portions of the
13
Enemeez brochure to promote Vacuant products. Alliance also alleges that Stratus has
14
misrepresented the number and quantities of active ingredients in the Vacuant products.
15
Alliance has asserted federal claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and
16
trademark infringement under the Lanham Act,1 and copyright infringement. Alliance
17
has asserted state law claims for unfair competition, trademark infringement, and unjust
18
enrichment.
19
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
“Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint [pursuant to Federal Rule of
21
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),] for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden
22
of establishing that a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant.”2 Where the
23
motion is based only upon written materials, rather than an evidentiary hearing, the
24
plaintiff is required only to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.3
25
26
1
27
2
28
3
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a).
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002).
-2-
1
Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are taken as true, and conflicts between
2
parties over statements contained in affidavits are resolved in favor of the plaintiff.4
3
“Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal
4
jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits.”5
5
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(a) authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction to the
6
extent permitted by federal due process requirements.6 Due process requires that the
7
defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance
8
of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”7
9
10
IV. DISCUSSION
A. General Jurisdiction
11
General jurisdiction arises where a defendant has “substantial” or “continuous
12
and systematic” contacts with the forum and therefore “can be haled into court in that
13
state in any action, even if the action is unrelated to those contacts.”8 The defendant’s
14
contacts must “be of the sort that approximate physical presence.”9 “Factors to be
15
taken into consideration are whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in
16
business in the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for service of
17
process, holds a license, or is incorporated there.”10
18
1. Sonar
19
20
21
4
22
5
23
6
24
7
25
8
26
Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 575 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2009).
Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d at 800.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a).
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted).
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000)
(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984)).
27
9
28
10
Id.
Id.
-3-
1
Alliance argues that, because 8% of Sonar’s 2011 sales and 1.64% of Sonar’s
2
sales for the first quarter of 2012 came from Arizona, Sonar is subject to general
3
jurisdiction in Arizona. Without more specific information, the court is unable to
4
conclude that the percentages of sales for 2011 and the first part of 2012 approximate
5
physical presence in Arizona. Because that is the only factor Alliance has used to
6
support its prima facie case, the court concludes that Sonar is not subject to general
7
jurisdiction in Arizona.
8
2. Stratus
9
Alliance argues that because 3.2% of Stratus’ 2011 gross sales and 14.25% of
10
Stratus’ gross sales for the first quarter of 2012 came from Arizona, Stratus is subject to
11
general jurisdiction in Arizona. As with Sonar, Stratus’ sales percentages in 2011 and
12
2012 do not approximate physical presence in Arizona. Again, because Alliance has
13
not cited any other factor supporting a prima facie case, the court concludes that Stratus
14
is not subject to general jurisdiction in Arizona.
15
B. Specific Jurisdiction
16
Specific jurisdiction exists where “(1) the defendant has performed some act or
17
consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed
18
himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of
19
or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of
20
jurisdiction is reasonable.”11 “The first prong is satisfied by either purposeful availment
21
or purposeful direction . . . which . . . are . . . two distinct concepts.”12 “Purposeful
22
direction is . . . the proper analytical framework in this case.”13
23
24
Purposeful direction is determined using a three-part test. A defendant has
purposefully directed activity towards a forum if the defendant has “(1) committed an
25
26
11
27
12
28
13
Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1086.
Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1128 (internal quotations omitted).
See id.
-4-
1
intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the
2
defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.”14
3
1. Sonar
4
Sonar maintains that it was only a contract manufacturer and that it did not
5
purposefully direct any action towards Arizona. Sonar states that it “did not develop the
6
labeling, packaging or inserts for the Vacuant products. It merely had the label,
7
packaging, and inserts as supplied to it printed.”15 Sonar therefore maintains that it did
8
not expressly aim any intentional act towards Arizona.
9
“Express aiming encompasses wrongful conduct individually targeting a known
10
forum resident.”16 Alliance argues in its response that Sonar and Stratus acted in
11
conjunction and “mimicked Alliance’s labeling.”17 In its complaint, Alliance alleges that
12
Sonar must have been aware that Stratus was falsely advertising because it
13
manufactured Vacuant and Vacuant Plus.18 Even if that allegation is true and would
14
subject Sonar to liability, knowledge that Stratus was falsely advertising does not
15
constitute express aiming at an Arizona resident.
16
Meanwhile, each of the “allegedly infringing activities” listed in Alliance’s
17
complaint refer only to conduct by Stratus.19 With respect to Alliance’s individual claims,
18
the complaint describes conduct by Stratus and then states that Sonar is also liable
19
because it “knows or has reason to know” of Stratus’ conduct.20 In short, Alliance has
20
21
14
22
Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d at 1128.
15
23
Doc. 29 at 6.
16
24
25
Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d 1082.
17
Doc. 23 at 11.
26
18
27
19
28
20
Doc. 1 at 10.
Doc. 1 at 13.
See, e.g., doc. 1 at 14, 16, 17
-5-
1
not supported allegations of any conduct on the part of Sonar that targeted Alliance or
2
any other forum resident. Because Alliance has not demonstrated express aiming, it
3
has not established purposeful direction and Sonar is not subject to specific jurisdiction.
4
2. Stratus
5
By contrast, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint state that Stratus has
6
intentionally copied substantial portions of Alliance’s brochures,21 and “deliberately
7
mimicked [Alliance’s] packaging.”22 Those allegations constitute intentional acts
8
expressly aimed at Alliance, an Arizona resident.23 Alliance has also alleged that it has
9
been injured by that conduct.24 Because Stratus would have known that its conduct
10
would injure an Arizona resident, Alliance has made a prima facie case of purposeful
11
direction.
12
Although Stratus argues that Alliance’s claims do not arise out of the sale of
13
Vacuant products in Arizona, that argument is both incorrect and immaterial. There is
14
no dispute that Alliance’s claims arise, in part, out of the Stratus’ alleged copying of
15
Alliance’s brochures. The only remaining question, therefore, is whether the exercise of
16
specific jurisdiction over Stratus would be reasonable.
17
Reasonableness depends on seven factors: “(1) the extent of the defendant’s
18
purposeful injection into the forum; (2) the defendant’s burdens from litigating in the
19
forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s forum; (4) the
20
forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution
21
22
23
24
21
25
22
26
27
28
Doc. 1 at 9.
Id.
23
Alliance also alleges that Stratus uses its trademarks in metatags for its website. Id. at
13. All of the pertinent jurisdictional allegations are supported by the declaration at docket 24.
24
See, e.g., doc. 24 at 4.
-6-
1
of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient
2
and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.”25
3
Here, Stratus has injected itself into Arizona via sales. Those sales have
4
recently constituted over 14% of its total sales. Although those sales do not constitute
5
continuous and systematic contacts sufficient to support general jurisdiction, they do
6
represent injection such that this factor weighs in favor of reasonableness. Stratus
7
argues that the burden of defending suit in Arizona is great because most of the
8
witnesses and evidence are in Florida. The burden on a non-resident defendant will
9
always be greater than the burden on a defendant who is a resident of the
10
forum–moreover, this factor is examined “in light of the corresponding burden on the
11
plaintiff.”26 Given that it is just as difficult for Alliance to litigate in Florida as it is for
12
Stratus to litigate in Arizona, and given that Alliance’s witnesses and evidence are in
13
Arizona, the second factor is a wash. The court agrees with Alliance that the exercise
14
of jurisdiction in this instance would not implicate Florida’s sovereignty; the third factor
15
therefore weighs in favor of reasonableness. As with most other states, “Arizona has a
16
strong interest in protecting its residents from torts that cause injury within the state, and
17
in providing a forum for relief.”27 The fourth factor therefore weighs in favor of
18
reasonableness.
19
With respect to the fifth factor, Alliance argues that the only non-party witnesses
20
are found in Arizona. Stratus responds that there are non-party witnesses in Florida as
21
well. The court concludes that this factor is a wash. The sixth factor–which focuses on
22
the plaintiff’s interest–is not as significant as the others, but ultimately weighs, however
23
slightly, in favor of reasonableness. Finally, both New Jersey and Florida represent
24
potential alternative forums, but as Alliance points out, “whether another reasonable
25
26
25
27
26
28
27
Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 1995).
Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir. 1988).
Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 1989).
-7-
1
forum exists becomes an issue only when the forum state is shown to be
2
unreasonable.”28
3
Because the court has concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction in Arizona is
4
reasonable, Stratus is subject to specific jurisdiction.
5
C. Venue
6
1. Dismissal
7
Stratus moves in the alternative to dismiss for improper venue. Stratus’
8
arguments in favor of dismissal all hinge on whether it is subject to personal jurisdiction
9
in Arizona.29 The court has already concluded that Stratus is subject to personal
10
jurisdiction in Arizona, and therefore dismissal based on improper venue is not
11
appropriate.
12
2. Transfer
13
Stratus argues that this case should be transferred to the Southern District of
14
Florida. Section 1406(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “[t]he
15
district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or
16
district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district
17
or division in which it could have been brought.”30 Because the court has already
18
concluded that Stratus is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona, venue is not
19
improper, and dismissal pursuant to § 1406(a) is inappropriate.
20
Stratus argues that the case should be transferred to the Southern District of
21
Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which states that “[f]or the convenience of
22
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909, 929 n.19 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1201).
29
See doc. 16 at 12. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) (“For all venue purposes an entity
. . . whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district
in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction . . . .”).
30
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
-8-
1
action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought.”31 Assuming that the
2
case could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida, whether transfer is
3
appropriate depends on a number of public and private factors. “The defendant must
4
make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of
5
forum.”32
6
Among the factors that may be considered are: (1) whether one state is more
7
familiar with the governing law than another; (2) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (3) the
8
parties’ contacts with the forum; (4) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s claim in the
9
chosen forum; (5) the differences in the cost of litigation in each forum; (6) the
10
availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of non-party witnesses; and
11
(7) the accessibility to sources of proof.33
12
The court disagrees with Stratus that “this is not a case where the burden is
13
simply shifted from one party to another.”34 Either party would be inconvenienced by
14
litigation in the other’s preferred forum. Here, neither Arizona nor Florida is more
15
familiar with the law governing Alliance’s federal claims. However, Alliance has chosen
16
Arizona. Some of its claims are based on allegations that Stratus copied its brochures
17
and labels almost verbatim. Those allegations also constitute the defendant’s
18
jurisdictionally significant contacts. The second, third, and fourth factors therefore
19
weigh against transferring the case. Stratus’ argument that compulsory process is more
20
readily available in Florida applies equally to Alliance’s witnesses who reside in Arizona.
21
Finally, the court has already discussed that witnesses and evidence are located in both
22
states. Consequently, Stratus has not made a strong showing of inconvenience
23
warranting transfer.
24
25
31
Id. § 1404(a).
26
32
27
33
28
34
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000).
Doc. 16 at 16.
-9-
1
2
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Sonar’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
3
at docket 12 is GRANTED. Sonar is DISMISSED from this action. Stratus’ motion at
4
docket 16 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. Stratus’ alternative
5
motion to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer to an alternative venue for the
6
convenience of the witnesses and the parties is DENIED.
7
DATED this 24th day of August 2012.
8
/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?