BMW of North America LLC et al v. Michael Chambers et al

Filing 12

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE VENUE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/27/2017. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-0846 FMO (JCx) Title BMW of North America, LLC, et al. v. Michael Chambers, et al. Present: The Honorable Date February 21, 2017 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: Venue On February 2, 2017, plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Michael Chambers (“defendant”) and ten Doe defendants alleging claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and violations of California Bus. & Profs. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 34-69). Plaintiffs allege defendant is a resident of North Port, Florida. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 25 & 29). According to plaintiffs, defendant “does business in the State of California through his California-based eBay account [and] PayPal account . . . and his shipments to California consumers.” (Id. at ¶ 3; see id. at ¶ 22). Both eBay and PayPal, however, are headquartered within the Northern District of California – not the Central District of California. (See, e.g., eBay’s February 6, 2017 SEC Form 10K at 1 (eBay is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California), available at (last accessed February 16, 2017); PayPal Holdings’s February 8, 2017 SEC Form 10K at 1 (PayPal Holdings is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California), available at (last accessed February 16, 2017). Plaintiffs also allege that their private investigator made purchases “from the State of California,” (Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 24 & 28), but do not indicate whether such purchases were made within this district. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT no later than February 27, 2017, plaintiffs shall file a Response, not to exceed five (5) pages, addressing why this action should not be transferred to the Northern District of California or Middle District of Florida. Should the court transfer this action, plaintiff must specify whether the transfer should be to California or Florida. 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 failure to comply with a court order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); or (2) transfer of the instant action to the appropriate venue. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL vdr Page 1 of 1

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?