Gibson Brands Inc v. George Anthony Leicht

Filing 15

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/2/2016. (vdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-3063 FMO (GJSx)

Title

Gibson Brands, Inc. v. George Anthony Leicht

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 29, 2016

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Personal Jurisdiction and
Venue

On May 4, 2016, plaintiff Gibson Brands, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendant
George Anthony Leicht (“defendant”) alleging: (1) trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2)
unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) false advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) trademark
dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (5) trade dress infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (6) common and
statutory law trademark infringement; and (7) common and statutory law unfair competition. (See
Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 30-57). Plaintiff alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction
because this case arises out of a violation of federal law. (See id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges that
venue is proper because “Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and a
substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred” here. (Id. at ¶ 8).
A defendant may be subject to either general or specific personal jurisdiction. See Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 754 (2014). General jurisdiction applies when a defendant’s
contacts with the forum state are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at
home” there. Id. at 761 (quotation and alteration marks omitted). Specific jurisdiction applies
when the cause of action “is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum”
state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Specific
jurisdiction does not apply unless a defendant commits an act by which it “purposefully avails itself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The defendant must have
sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state “such that he should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 &
297 (1980). The court’s analysis “looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not
the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122
(2014). “[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Id.
Plaintiff generally alleges that “Defendant has purposefully availed himself of the
opportunity to conduct commercial activities in this forum, and this Complaint arises out of those
activities.” (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 8). Plaintiff further alleges that “Defendant maintains
continuous and systematic contacts with the forum[.]” (Id.). However, plaintiff does not allege any
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-3063 FMO (GJSx)

Date

Title

Gibson Brands, Inc. v. George Anthony Leicht

August 29, 2016

specific contacts between defendant and the state of California, nor does plaintiff allege how its
causes of action arise out of or relate to those contacts. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Complaint).
Plaintiff also does not allege any facts showing that the events giving rise to this litigation occurred
in this District. (See, generally, id.).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than September 2, 2016, plaintiff shall show
cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or
transferred for lack of proper venue. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by the
deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to either: (1) the dismissal of the
action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a
court order; or (2) transfer of the instant action to the appropriate venue.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

vdr

Page 2 of 2