BMW of North America LLC et al v. Michael Chambers et al
(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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 17-0846 FMO (JCx)
BMW of North America, LLC, et al. v. Michael Chambers, et al.
Present: The Honorable
February 21, 2017
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney Present for Defendant(s):
(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 www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data (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 www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data
(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
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
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?