Bellagio, LLC et al v. Bellagio Shoes, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER that Defendants Motion to Dismiss 10 is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiffs to re-file their action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 2/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

12

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13

This is a trademark infringement and dilution case commenced by

7

BELLAGIO, LLC, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

vs.
BELLAGIO SHOES, INC., et al.,

11

Defendants.

2:11-CV-01975-PMP-PAL
ORDER

14

Plaintiffs Bellagio, LLC and Mirage Resorts, Incorporated (“Bellagio”) against

15

Defendants Bellagio Shoes, Inc., a California corporation, Shlomo Ronen, Bertini

16

Shoes, Inc., a California corporation, and Itzhak Ben Shoshan. Before the Court for

17

consideration is Defendants’ fully briefed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

18

Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc.

19

#10).

20

Defendants are not residents of Nevada and the Defendant shoe stores are

21

located in Santa Monica, California. For this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction

22

over Defendants, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants have at least “minimum

23

contacts” with Nevada such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend

24

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Schwarzenegger v. Fred

25

Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). After considering the

26

extensive briefing and declarations submitted by the Parties as they affect each

1

Defendant individually and collectively, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to

2

demonstrate personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants.

3

Plaintiffs have failed to show continuous and systematic ties with the

4

District of Nevada which “approximate physical presence.” In Re Western States

5

Wholesale Natural Gas Litig., 605 F. Supp. 2d 118, 1131 (D. Nev, 2009). Neither

6

have Plaintiffs shown that their claims arise out of, or relate to Defendants contacts

7

with Nevada, or that by their conduct, Defendants have purposefully availed

8

themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Nevada, thereby invoking the

9

benefits and protections of Nevada law. As a result, the Court finds it lacks general

10
11

jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction over Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

12

(Doc. #10) is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiffs to re-file their action in the

13

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

14

DATED: February 27, 2012.

15
16
17

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2