JACOBSPARTS, INC v. UNITED INTEGRAL, INC.
Filing
61
ORDER denying 15 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction - The Court finds that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over United Integral in this matter. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 15 .] Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2013. (JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JACOBSPARTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
UNITED INTEGRAL, INC.,
Defendant.
1:12-cv-00462-JMS-MJD
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant United Integral, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss, [dkt. 15], which the Court DENIES for the reasons that follow.
I.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff Jacobsparts, Inc. (“Jacobsparts”), an Indiana corporation, filed
suit against Defendant United Integral, Inc. (“United Integral”), a California corporation, for
allegedly listing and selling counterfeit products with Jacobsparts’ trademark. [Dkt. 1.] United
Integral has moved to dismiss the matter pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing that it
“has not had sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana to support personal jurisdiction.” [Dkt.
16 at 1.] The Court has limited jurisdiction to determine whether United Integral has had
sufficient contacts with the State of Indiana to allow this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction
over it. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 465 U.S.
694, 706 (1982) (“By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of
challenging jurisdiction, the defendant agrees to abide by that court’s determination on the issue
of jurisdiction”) (internal citation omitted).
1
II.
DISCUSSION
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that
before a state may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have had certain
“minimum contacts” with the state “such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945). Where, as here, jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of a federal statute that does not
authorize nationwide service of process, 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), the federal district court must look
to the jurisdictional statutes of the forum state. Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc. v. Sunset Tan
Corporate & Consulting, LLC, 703 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (citing United States v.
Martinez De Ortiz, F.2d 376, 381 (7th Cir. 1990). Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(A) serves as Indiana’s
long-arm provision and expands personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due
Process Clause. Linkamerica Corp. v. Cox, 857 N.E.2d 961, 965-66 (Ind. 2006). Rule 4.4(A)
provides “a handy checklist of activities that usually support personal jurisdiction but does not
serve as a limitation on the exercise of personal jurisdiction” by Indiana courts. Id. at 967.
Specifically, Rule 4.4(A) states, in relevant part:
A. Acts Serving as a Basis for Jurisdiction. Any … organization that is a
nonresident of this state …, submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this
state as to any action arising from the following acts committed by him or his
agent:
(1) doing any business in this state;
…
(4) having supplied or contracted to supply services rendered or goods or
materials furnished or to be furnished in this state;….
While personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific, Jacobsparts concedes that
no basis exists for this Court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over United Integral. [Dkt.
38 at 1.] Therefore, the Court will only address whether it is able to exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over United Integral.
2
Specific personal jurisdiction requires only a minimum of contacts, but it requires that the
controversy be related in some way to the defendant’s contact with the forum. Int’l Shoe, 326
U.S. at 319. The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within the forum so that the defendant may reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there. Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75 (1985)).
While United Integral maintains that “[e]ven if United Integral did infringe on
Jacobsparts trademarks, it did so from California,” [dkt. 16 at 10], its argument misapprehends
the notion of purposeful availment.
As United Integral has admitted, Indiana customers
represent 1.7% of its total sales, [dkt. 16-1 at 3], and despite its contention that “none of the
actions complained of occurred in Indiana,” [dkt. 16 at 10], Jacobsparts has submitted an
affidavit of an Indiana customer who received at least three of the allegedly infringing products,
[dkt. 38-1]. The Court therefore finds that Jacobsparts has satisfied its burden of demonstrating
that United Integral supplied accused goods to customers in Indiana and should have anticipated
being haled into court in this state. Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over United Integral in this matter.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that it may exercise personal jurisdiction
over United Integral in this matter. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. [Dkt. 15.]
01/25/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
3
Distribution via ECF:
Michael Paul Bishop
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
mbishop@cgglawfirm.com
Paul D. Gresk
GRESK & SINGLETON
pgresk@gslawindy.com
Randolph A. Leerkamp
GRESK & SINGLETON
randolph_leerkamp@yahoo.com
Joshua Thornton Robertson
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
jrobertson@cgglawfirm.com
4
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?