Patagonia, Inc. v. Angie Mobley et al

Filing 24

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/4/2018. (vdr)

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

CV 18-3868 FMO (RAOx)

Title

Patagonia, Inc. v. Angie Mobley, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 24, 2018

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 May 9, 2018, plaintiff Patagonia, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendants
Angela Mobley, Brandon Mobley, Kinsey Linn Karpowicz, Kalee Sauls, Tiffany Gutridge, MaryKate
Worthington, Summer McClendon, Ashley Crawford, Tammy Mann, Kailey Bullock, April Frey,
Myra’s Bowtique, and Sapphire & Sycamore Boutique (collectively, “defendants”), alleging federal
trademark counterfeiting and infringement, federal unfair competition, and copyright infringement.
(See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 36-55). Plaintiff alleges that the court has personal jurisdiction over
the defendants because “Defendants have purposefully directed their conduct into this district,
including by individually targeting Patagonia, a corporation with its principle place of business in
this district, by infringing and counterfeiting its trademarks.” (Id. at ¶ 15). Plaintiff further alleges
that defendants “operate interactive websites, including interactive Facebook Groups, that are
used to sell their infringing and counterfeit products, and that are accessible by consumers in this
district[,]” and that are used to post advertisements, receive orders, and arrange payment and
delivery. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper because “Defendants infringe Patagonia’s
intellectual property in this district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims
asserted arose in this district.” (Id. at ¶ 16).
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
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 18-3868 FMO (RAOx)

Date

Title

Patagonia, Inc. v. Angie Mobley, et al.

May 24, 2018

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 does not allege any specific contacts between defendants 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). Plaintiff also does not allege any facts showing that the events
giving rise to this litigation occurred in this District. (See, generally, id.). Further, plaintiff points
to defendants’ use of Facebook Groups, (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 15), but Facebook is
headquartered within the Northern District of California, not the Central District of California. (See,
e.g., Facebook’s February 1, 2018 Form 10K at 1) (Facebook is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Menlo Park, California).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 4, 2018, 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