Robert Bosch GmbH et al v. Chase Murdoch et al

Filing 12

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/19/2016. (vdr)

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

CV 16-9009 FMO (PLAx)

Title

Robert Bosch GmbH, et al. v. Chase Murdoch, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 12, 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 December 5, 2016, plaintiffs Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC (“plaintiffs”)
filed a Complaint against defendants Chase Murdoch, Jack Stewart, and Mile High Auto Parts
(“defendants”) alleging various federal and common law trademark violations. (See Dkt. 1,
Complaint at ¶¶ 30-59). Plaintiff alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction because this
case arises out of a violation of federal law. (See id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper
because “a substantial part of the events, omissions and acts that are the subject matter of this
action occurred within the Central District of California.” (Id. at ¶ 12).
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 defendants’ contacts
with the forum state are “so continuous and systematic as to render [them] essentially at home.”
Id. at 761 (quotation and alteration marks omitted). The court may assert specific personal
jurisdiction over nonresident defendants if three requirements are met: “(1) [t]he 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 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.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). The
court engages in “purposeful availment” analysis for contract cases and “purposeful direction”
analysis for tort cases. See id. 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.
Plaintiffs are citizens of Germany, Delaware, and Illinois, (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 2-3),
the individual defendants are citizens of Colorado, (see id. at ¶¶ 4-5 & 8), and plaintiffs as of yet

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 16-9009 FMO (PLAx)

Date

Title

Robert Bosch GmbH, et al. v. Chase Murdoch, et al.

December 12, 2016

do not know the citizenship of entity defendant Mile High Auto Parts.1 (See id. at ¶ 7). Plaintiffs
allege that jurisdiction and venue is proper in the Central District of California because, “[r]ecently,
a Bosch agent placed an order from the Central District of California to purchase products from
Defendants,” which defendants then shipped to the Central District of California. (See id. at ¶ 25).
However, “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Walden, 134
S.Ct. at 1122. Other than the actions of plaintiffs’ agent, plaintiffs do not allege any specific
contacts between defendants and California, nor do plaintiffs allege how their causes of action
arise out of or relate to those contacts. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Complaint). Plaintiffs also do 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 December 19, 2016, plaintiffs 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.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

vdr

1

Plaintiffs also allege that defendants sold their purportedly infringing products on eBay.
(See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 6, 8 & 48). eBay is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in San Jose, California, which is located within the Northern District of California.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2