Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Newtritional Health Care, LLC

Filing 10

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/20/2017. (vdr)

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

CV 17-7463 FMO (Ex)

Title

Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Newtritional Health Care, LLC

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 13, 2017

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff:

Attorney Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Personal Jurisdiction and
Venue

On October 12, 2017, plaintiff Nutrition Distribution, LLC (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
against defendant Newtritional Health Care, LLC (“defendant”) for false advertising in violation of
the Lanham Act. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 44-54). Plaintiff alleges that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction because this case arises out of a violation of federal law. (See id. at ¶ 13).
Plaintiff also alleges that personal jurisdiction is proper “because each Defendant has, directly or
through its intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), developed, licensed,
manufactured, shipped, distributed, offered for sale, sold, and advertised its nutritional supplement
products in the United States, the State of Arizona, and this district[.]” (Id. at ¶ 14). In addition,
defendant claims that “[v]enue is proper in this judicial district . . . because a substantial part of the
events or omissions which gave rise to the claim occurred in this district.” (Id. at ¶ 15).
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.
Here, neither plaintiff nor defendant appear to have any connection to California as plaintiff
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 17-7463 FMO (Ex)

Date

Title

Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Newtritional Health Care, LLC

November 13, 2017

is an Arizona company while defendant is an Alabama company. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 1617). Plaintiff claims that venue is proper in this district “because a substantial part of the events
or omissions which gave rise to the claim occurred in this district.” (Id. at ¶ 15). However,
although plaintiff alleges that the products at issue have been sold and advertised in “the State
of Arizona,” (id. at ¶ 14), the Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding California or
this district. Further, while the Complaint does allege that defendant sells products on several
websites, (see id. at ¶ 1), the maintenance of a passive website alone is insufficient for purposes
of personal jurisdiction. (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 jurisdiction). In other words, plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that the
events giving rise to this litigation occurred in this district. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Complaint).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 20, 2017, plaintiff
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

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2