Health in Motion, LLC v. Inspire Fitness, Inc.
Filing
13
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 8/26/2016. (vdr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 16-1662 FMO (Ex)
Title
Health in Motion, LLC v. Inspire Fitness, Inc.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 12, 2016
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 July 28, 2016, plaintiff Health in Motion, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed this action against
defendant Inspire Fitness, Inc. (“defendant”), asserting causes of action for federal trademark
infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a),
trademark cancellation under 15 U.S.C. § 1064, and “common law” unfair competition. (See Dkt.
1, Complaint at ¶¶ 16-35). Plaintiff alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction because
this case arises out of a violation of federal law. (See id. at ¶ 2). Plaintiff further alleges that
venue is proper because defendant is “subject to personal jurisdiction in this District” and “because
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.” (See id. at ¶ 6).
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 a defendant’s
contacts with the forum state are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at
home” there. Id. at 761 (quotation and alteration marks omitted). Specific jurisdiction applies
when the cause of action “is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with” the forum
state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Specific
jurisdiction does not apply unless a defendant commits an act by which it “purposefully avails itself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The defendant must have
sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state “such that he should reasonably anticipate
being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 &
297 (1980). 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 the court “has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, as Defendant’s
conduct directly affects Plaintiff which resides in this judicial district[.]” (Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 5).
Plaintiff does not allege any specific contacts between defendant and the state of California, nor
does plaintiff allege how its causes of action arise out of or relate to those contacts. (See,
generally, id.). Plaintiff also does not allege any facts showing that the events giving rise to this
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 16-1662 FMO (Ex)
Date
Title
Health in Motion, LLC v. Inspire Fitness, Inc.
August 12, 2016
litigation occurred in this district. (See, generally, id.). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT no
later than August 26, 2016, 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 the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction
and/or failure to comply with a court order.
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?