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)

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