Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp. et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS 84 MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 40 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/30/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 12-2582 CW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET NO. 84) AND MOTION TO DISMISS (DOCKET NO. 40) v. KOZUMI USA CORP. and SHAO WEI HSU, Defendants. ________________________________/ 11 Defendants Kozumi USA Corp. and William Hsu Wu1 move to 12 13 dismiss Plaintiff Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.’s claims against them 14 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 15 to modify the preliminary injunction this Court issued on July 5, 16 2012, freezing Defendants’ real estate assets. 17 at 2. 18 September 27, 2012. 19 papers submitted by the parties, the Court DENIES both motions. 20 The Court’s June 20, 2012 order granting in part Plaintiff’s 21 application for a temporary restraining order sets forth the 22 relevant facts in this case. 23 I. In addition, Defendants move Plaintiff opposes both motions. See Docket No. 61, The motions were heard on Having considered oral argument and the Docket No. 41, at 2-11. Motion to Dismiss 24 In its June 20, 2012 order, the Court made a preliminary 25 finding that Plaintiff would likely be able to establish personal 26 jurisdiction over Defendants in this case. Id. at 22-29. 27 1 28 The individual Defendant named in Ubiquiti’s complaint as Shao Wei Hsu indicates that his true name is William Hsu Wu. 1 Defendants have not offered any compelling reason here to disturb 2 that initial finding. 3 distinguish this case from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 4 Panavision v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320-24 (9th Cir. 1998), 5 another trademark infringement action concerning specific 6 jurisdiction, which the Court relied upon in its previous order. 7 The Court therefore adheres to the reasoning of its previous 8 decision and denies Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. 9 II. In particular, they have failed to Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has abused this Court’s 11 July 5, 2012 preliminary injunction by using it to obtain a notice 12 of lis pendens in a Florida court to block the transfer of several 13 real estate properties formerly owned or controlled by Defendant 14 Wu.2 15 longer belong to Defendant Wu, they fall outside the scope of the 16 asset freeze in the preliminary injunction. 17 Defendants ask the Court to remove the asset freeze in its 18 entirety from the preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, 19 to order Plaintiff to withdraw its lis pendens. Specifically, they argue that because these properties no In their motion, 20 Defendants have not demonstrated here “that a significant 21 change in facts or law warrants revision or dissolution of the 22 injunction.” 23 2000). 24 original reasons for issuing the preliminary injunction nor have Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. They present no new information to undermine the Court’s 25 26 27 28 2 In addition to the lis pendens, Plaintiff has initiated another action in Florida court challenging the validity of real estate transfers previously made by Defendant Wu involving the same properties identified in the lis pendens. 2 1 they shown that the injunction has subjected them to some new or 2 unforeseen hardship. 3 explained how lifting the current freeze on their real estate 4 assets would prevent Plaintiff from maintaining its lis pendens in 5 Florida. 6 properties subject to the lis pendens fall outside the scope of 7 this Court’s injunction. 8 Plaintiff’s lis pendens, the proper forum to do so is the court in 9 which it was filed. More importantly, they have not clearly After all, Defendants’ central argument here is that the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 If Defendants wish to challenge CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 12 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 40) and DENIES Defendants’ motion to 13 modify the preliminary injunction (Docket No. 84). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: October 30, 2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?