365 Connect, LLC v. Somerset Pacific, LLC et al
Filing
17
ORDER AND REASONS granting 14 First MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jason Martin. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/11/2014.(caa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
365 CONNECT, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-995
SOMERSET PACIFIC, LLC &
JASON MARTIN
SECTION “F”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Jason Martin's motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or to transfer venue.
For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Background
This is a copyright infringement and breach of contract case.
365 Connect is a Louisiana company that provides web-based
computer software development services to property owners and
managers in the multifamily housing industry.
Somerset Pacific is
a property management company registered and operating in Idaho and
Jason Martin is a web developer and consultant who lives and works
in Idaho.
365 alleges that Somerset initially contracted with it
for web-design services but then abruptly terminated the agreement.
365 further alleges that Somerset then hired Jason Martin for the
specific purpose of copying website designs previously created by
365. On April 30, 2014, 365 filed suit against Somerset and Martin
alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract, and other
related claims.
Martin now moves to dismiss for lack of personal
1
jurisdiction and improper venue, or, alternatively, to transfer
venue.
I.
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows
a
defendant
to
challenge
jurisdiction over it.
the
Court’s
exercise
of
personal
When a nonresident defendant, like Martin,
seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the
Court’s jurisdiction over the defendant, but need only make a prima
facie case if the Court rules without an evidentiary hearing.
See
Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir.
2008); see also Luv N’ Care v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 469
(5th Cir. 2006). The Court takes all uncontroverted allegations in
the complaint as true and resolves any conflicts in the plaintiffs’
favor.
Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 1994).
The
Court is not restricted to pleadings, but may consider affidavits,
interrogatories, depositions, or any other appropriate method of
discovery.
Id.; see Jobe v. ATR Mktg., Inc., 87 F.3d 751, 752 (5th
Cir. 1996).
II.
A.
The
Court
may
exercise
personal
jurisdiction
over
nonresident defendant only if two requirements are satisfied:
a
(1)
the forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction;
2
and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.
See Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 270 (5th
Cir. 2006). Because the limits of Louisiana’s long-arm statute are
coextensive with the limits of constitutional due process, the twopart inquiry merges into one: whether this Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant would offend due process.
R.S.
13:3201(B);
Luv
N’
Care,
438
F.3d
at
469;
See La.
see
also
Electrosource, Inc. v. Horizon Battery Techs., Ltd., 176 F.3d 867,
871 (5th Cir. 1999).
“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum
with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or
relations.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72
(1985)(citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319
(1945)); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466
U.S. 408, 413-14 (1994)(The Due Process Clause limits the Court’s
power
to
assert
defendant.).
personal
jurisdiction
over
a
nonresident
In order to conclude that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause, it must be shown
that: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the
benefits
and
protections
of
the
forum
state
by
establishing
“minimum contacts” with that state; and (2) the exercise of
personal jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.”
Choice Healthcare, Inc. v. Kaiser
3
Foundation Health Plan of Colorado, 615 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir.
2010)(citations omitted).
“The ‘minimum contacts’ inquiry is fact
intensive and no one element is decisive; rather the touchstone is
whether
the
defendant’s
conduct
shows
that
[he]
‘reasonably
anticipates being haled into court’” in the forum state.
McFadin
v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009).
The
minimum
contacts
inquiry
takes
two
forms,
and
the
constitutional limitations on the exercise of personal jurisdiction
differ depending on whether a court is asked to exercise general or
specific jurisdiction over the defendant.
Choice Healthcare, 615
F.3d at 368 (“The ‘minimum contacts’ prong of the two-part test may
be further subdivided into contacts that give rise to ‘general’
personal jurisdiction and ‘specific’ personal jurisdiction.”).
Regardless of whether the lawsuit is related to the defendant’s
contacts with the forum, courts may exercise general jurisdiction
over any lawsuit brought against a defendant that has substantial,
continuous, and systematic general contacts with the forum state.
See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 271 (citing Helicopteros Nactionales, 466
at 413-14); Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309,
312 (5th Cir. 2007)(“Random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts are
not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”). “If”, on the other
hand, “a defendant has relatively few contacts, a court may still
exercise specific jurisdiction ‘in a suit arising out of or related
to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’”
4
Id.
General
jurisdiction focuses on incidents of continuous activity within the
disputed forum; specific jurisdiction is more constrained by virtue
of a very limited nexus with the forum.
If a plaintiff demonstrates minimum contacts between the
defendant and the forum state, then the Court may exercise personal
jurisdiction unless the defendant makes a “compelling case” that
the exercise of jurisdiction is unfair or unreasonable.
Burger
King, 471 U.S. at 477; Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d
208, 215 (5th Cir. 1999).
In determining whether the exercise of
jurisdiction is fair and reasonable, the Court considers certain
fairness factors, including: (1) the burden on the non-resident
defendant;
(2)
plaintiff’s
the
interest
interests
in
of
obtaining
the
forum
relief;
(4)
state;
the
(3)
the
interstate
judicial system’s interest in the most efficient resolution of
controversies; and (5) the shared interests of the several states
in furthering fundamental social policies.
See Nuovo Pignone v.
Storman Asia M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 382 (5th Cir. 2002)(citation
omitted).
Martin contends that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over him because the plaintiff fails to allege a sufficient
jurisdictional nexus between him and the State of Louisiana.
Plaintiff
counters
that
Martin
5
has
contacts
with
Louisiana
sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.1
B.
“In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific
jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of ‘issues deriving from,
or
connected
with,
jurisdiction.’”
personal
very
controversy
that
establishes
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 131 S.
Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011).
step
the
The Fifth Circuit has articulated a three-
jurisdiction
inquiry
“fully
applicable
to
jurisdiction questions generated by” the Internet:
(1)
Did the plaintiff’s cause of action arise
out of or result from the defendant’s
forum-related contacts?
(2)
Did the defendant purposefully direct its
activities toward the forum state or
purposefully
avail
itself
of
the
privilege
of
conducting
activities
therein; and
(3)
Would
the
exercise
jurisdiction over the
reasonable and fair?
of
personal
defendant be
Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214,
227 (5th Cir.
2012).2
“[T]he defendant’s contacts [with the forum]
must be more than ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated, or of the
unilateral activity of another party or third person,’”; however,
1
It is undisputed that this Court lacks general jurisdiction
over Martin.
2
If the plaintiff establishes (1) and (2), then the burden
shifts to the defendant, who must show that it would be unfair or
unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction. Id.
6
the Fifth Circuit observes that, unlike general jurisdiction,
“specific jurisdiction may exist where there are only isolated or
sporadic contacts, so long as the plaintiff’s claim relates to or
arises out of those contacts.” ITL Int’l, Inc. v. Constenla, S.A.,
669 F.3d 493, 499 (5th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted).
Finally, specific personal jurisdiction is claim-specific;
that is, if a plaintiff’s claims relate to different forum contacts
of the defendant, then specific jurisdiction must be established
for each claim.
Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d
266, 274-75 (5th Cir. 2006); McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753, 759
(5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 68 (2010).
C.
Under the principles of specific jurisdiction, the Court must
determine whether the alleged contacts with Louisiana arise out of
or are related to the asserted claims.
claims
against
Martin.
First,
Plaintiff raises three
plaintiff
alleges
copyright
infringement:
66.
Defendants Somerset and Jason Martin used Somerset's
subscriber access to 365 Connect’s works of authorship in
order to copy them and/or create derivatives therein.
Somerset's
Somerset's
similar to
subscriber
67.
websites, as developed by Jason Martin under
direction, are probatively and substantially
the templates created for the 365 Connect
platform.
68.
Somerset's use of the infringing websites created by
7
Jason Martin has deprived 365 Connect of revenue.
69.
The infringing development of the websites was willful.
Second, plaintiff alleges that Martin circumvented access controls
in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that:
74.
365 Connect employed a number of technological measures
to preclude unauthorized access and copying of the 365
Intellectual Property, including but not limited to
implementation of a username and password scheme limiting
access to authorized users.
75.
Defendant Somerset knowingly and willingly circumvented
these technological measures by providing Jason Martin
with access to the 365 Connect technology platform and/or
accessing it directly for purposes of creating
unauthorized derivative works and/or copies.
Jason
Martin knowingly and wilfully used such access for these
purposes.
Third, plaintiff alleges that Martin removed copyright management
information in violation of the DMCA:
79.
365 Connect provided copyright notice and author
attribution information, including both public notice
and/or HTML “metadata,” “comments,” and/or other source
code within the 365 Intellectual Property.
80.
In creating copies of the 365 Intellectual Property
Defendant Jason Martin, on behalf of and on instruction
from Defendant Somerset, knowingly and with the intent to
facilitate or conceal infringement intentionally removed
such copyright management information.
81.
Defendants did then knowingly and with the intent to
8
facilitate or conceal infringement provide false
copyright management information claiming Somerset held
copyright in the infringing works.
Each of these claims arise out of the same alleged forum contacts.
It is undisputed that Martin lives and works in Idaho and that all
of his alleged acts occurred in Idaho.3
Plaintiff's only basis for
claiming contacts between Martin and this forum is the allegation
that
Martin
plaintiff,
purposefully
a
Louisiana
directed
company.
his
tortious
Plaintiff
activities
submits
sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction.
this
at
is
The Court
disagrees.
Plaintiff asserts that under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783
(1984), this Court has specific jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant who engages in intentional tortious conduct designed to
injure the plaintiff in the forum state.
limited in scope than plaintiff suggests.
But Calder is more
In Calder, the Supreme
Court held that specific jurisdiction was warranted because the
defendant's activities intentionally made the forum "the focal
point...of the harm suffered." Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit has held that the "effects test" of Calder is
“not
a
substitute
for
a
nonresident's
minimum
contacts
that
demonstrate purposeful availment of the benefits of the forum
state.”
Allred v. Moore & Peterson, 117 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir.
1997).
Instead, Calder’s applicability is limited to cases in
3
In fact, Martin has never even been to Louisiana.
9
which “allegedly tortious acts...were expressly aimed at the forum
state and the nonresident defendants knew that their acts would
have
an
impact
on
the
plaintiff
in
the
forum
state.”
Id.
“Foreseeable injury alone is not sufficient to confer specific
jurisdiction, absent the direction of specific acts toward the
forum.”
Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208, 212 (5th
Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff's invocation of Calder falls short. There is simply
no evidence that any of Martin's acts "were expressly aimed at the
forum state and the nonresident defendant[] knew that [his] acts
would have an impact on the plaintiff in the forum state.” Allred,
117
F.3d
at
286.
Instead,
any
contacts
between
Martin
and
Louisiana rest on "the mere fortuity" that plaintiff happened to be
a Louisiana company.
See Holt Oil & Gas Corp. v. Harvey, 801 F.2d
773 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff fails to satisfy its prima facie
case of specific jurisdiction as to Martin.
Accordingly, Martin's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is GRANTED
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 11, 2014
_______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
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?