Beachbody, LLC v. Jadee Investments Corporation et al

Filing 14

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/11/2017. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-2067 FMO (AFMx) Title Beachbody, LLC v. Jadee Investments Corp., et al. Present: The Honorable Date April 4, 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: Personal Jurisdiction and Venue On March 15, 2017, plaintiff Beachbody, LLC (“plaintiff” or “Beachbody”) filed a Complaint against defendants Jadee Investments Corp., William Lee, and Kayo Cleveland (“defendants”) alleging various trademark and copyright infringement claims. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 5091). Jadee Investments is incorporated in Hawaii with a principal place of business in Anniston, Alabama. (See id. at ¶ 2). Lee and Cleveland are residents of Anniston, Alabama. (See id. at ¶¶ 3-4). 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. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have “advertise[d] for sale” and “have sold and distributed . . . counterfeit” Beachbody products “through www.LNinvestmentcorporation.com and www.jadeemarketplace.com.” (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 32-33). Plaintiff, however, does not allege any specific contacts between defendants’ websites 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); see, e.g., Mission Trading Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 2016 WL 6679556, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (maintenance of a passive website, alone, cannot satisfy specific personal jurisdiction). Plaintiff alleges that defendants “register[ed] and operate accounts” on eBay.com and 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 17-2067 FMO (AFMx) Date Title Beachbody, LLC v. Jadee Investments Corp., et al. April 4, 2017 Bonanza.com “to advertise, sell, and distribute counterfeit Beachbody” products, (Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 34 & 38), and process payments from those sales through Paypal. (See id. at ¶ 35). eBay.com 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 Form 10K at 1 (eBay is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California); PayPal Holdings February 8, 2017 Form 10K at 1 (PayPal Holdings is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California). Bonanza.com is incorporated and has a principal place of business in Washington. (See Washington Secretary of State Website, available at www.sos.wa.gov/corps) (last accessed on April 3, 2017). Moreover, plaintiff contends that it “authorized the purchase of” purported Beachbody products from defendants, (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 40-41), but when assessing specific personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. at 1122 (2014). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 11, 2017, plaintiff shall file a response, not to exceed five (5) pages, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or transferred for lack of proper venue. Should the court transfer the action, plaintiff must specify in its response the venue(s) where the action should be transferred. 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, 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. 00 Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL : 00 vdr Page 2 of 2

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?