Your True Nature, Inc. v. JF Show Store
ORDER denying 7 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for a Status Conference. Plaintiff has 14 days to amend the complaint and file a new motion for TRO. by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 1/19/2023.(jdyne)
Case 1:23-cv-00107-CNS-NRN Document 18 Filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 23-cv-00107-CNS
YOUR TRUE NATURE, INC.,
JF SHOW STORE et al.,
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s (1) Ex Parte Application For Entry of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary Injunction, and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets, and
(2) Motion for a Status Conference. (ECF Nos. 7, 9). The Court DENIES the application for the
TRO and the motion for a status conference for the following reasons.
I. FACTS 1
Plaintiff, owned by Scott H. Alyn, is a Colorado Corporation with its principal place of
business in Fort Collins, Colorado, and licenses and sells copies of Alyn’s works. (ECF No. 1, pp.
1-2). Plaintiff initiated this civil action due to alleged copyright infringement of Alyn’s works and
raises four claims: (1) trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114;
(2) Texas common law unfair competition; (3) Texas common law trademark infringement; and
The facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and the instant motion. (ECF Nos. 1, 7).
Case 1:23-cv-00107-CNS-NRN Document 18 Filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
(4) copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106. (ECF No. 1, pp. 21-25). Plaintiff seeks
a TRO against the parties identified in Schedule A (the Defendants).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Before a federal court can assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a federal
question case, the court must determine (1) whether the applicable statute potentially confers
jurisdiction by authorizing service of process on the defendant and (2) whether the exercise of
jurisdiction comports with due process.” Peay v. BellSouth Med. Assistance Plan, 205 F.3d 1206,
1209 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Lanham Act does not
provide for national service of process; thus, the Colorado state long-arm statute governs the
analysis. 15 U.S.C. § 1051; Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17, 22 (2d Cir. 2004);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Because Colorado’s long-arm statute confers the maximum
jurisdiction permissible consistent with the Due Process Clause, the first inquiry collapses into the
second. Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070 (10th Cir. 2008).
The Tenth Circuit has established general categories of websites and corresponding
analyses to determine whether a website subjects its author to the general personal jurisdiction of
a particular forum. Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1240-42 (10th Cir. 2011). These three
general categories include: (1) business websites where the site’s owner clearly conducts business
over the Internet between different fora; (2) passive websites; and (3) interactive websites. SCC
Commc’ns Corp. v. Anderson, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1260 (2002); Soma Med. Int’l v. Standard
Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that Plaintiff is alleging
that Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction based on the first category of websites.
Case 1:23-cv-00107-CNS-NRN Document 18 Filed 01/19/23 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district based
on their conduct online and directing their activities towards consumers throughout the United
States. (ECF no. 1, p. 2). A nonresident defendant is subject to this Court’s specific personal
jurisdiction only when he “has purposefully directed activities at forum residents or otherwise
acted to avail himself purposefully of the privilege of conducting activities [in Colorado].” Impact
Prods., Inc. v. Impact Prods., LLC, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1190 (D. Colo. 2004). A defendant has
purposefully directed activities at Colorado or its residents when he has (1) taken intentional
action, (2) that was expressly aimed at Colorado, (3) with the knowledge that the brunt of the injury
from the action would be felt in Colorado. Id. The Court is cognizant that the case was transferred
to the District of Colorado on January 11, 2023. (ECF No. 10). The Court, based on the facts
within the current Complaint and motion for a TRO, finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction
over the listed Defendants in Schedule A because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
purposefully directed their business activities toward and conduct business with consumers in the
state of Texas via their internet-based digital stores. (ECF No. 1, p. 2).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For Entry of Temporary Restraining Order
and Motion for a Status Conference are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 7, 9). Plaintiff will have fourteen
(14) days from the date of this order to amend its Complaint and file a new motion for TRO.
DATED this 19th day of January 2023.
BY THE COURT:
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
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?