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)
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?