Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Avalinx, LLC

Filing 24

ORDER Denying 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/10/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TAMARA BEATTY PETERSON (Nevada Bar No. 5218)
[e-mail]
LAURA E. BIELINSKI (Nevada Bar No. 10516)
[e-mail]
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
f/k/a SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

B ROW NSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP
100 N ORTH CITY PARKWAY , SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS , NV
(702) 382 -2101

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

SHUFFLE MASTER, INC., a Minnesota
corporation,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:12-cv-01042-JCM-CWH

Plaintiff,
v.
AVALINX, LLC,
liability company,

an

Ohio

limited

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO
TRANSFER VENUE

Defendant.

16
17

Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and

18

Improper Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue ("Motion") filed by Defendant Avalinx,

19

Inc., identified as Avalinx, LLC, in the caption ("Avalinx"), the papers filed in connection

20

therewith, the record in this case, and oral argument by counsel for Avalinx and Plaintiff SHFL

21

entertainment, Inc. f/k/a as Shuffle Master, Inc. ("SHFL") at the November 28, 2012, hearing on

22

the Motion;

23
24

THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT:
1.

Personal jurisdiction over Avalinx is proper under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984),

25

because:

26

a.

27

SHFL's Complaint against Avalinx sufficiently pleads facts to establish
that Avalinx has purposefully directed its conduct at SHFL in the District

28

014334\0004\1758726.1

1

1

of Nevada under Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1322

2

(9th Cir. 1998)—which does not require a defendant's physical contact

3

with the forum state—as follows:
i.

4

SHFL's allegations that Avalinx intentionally infringed SHFL's

5

copyrighted material and trademarks are sufficient to show that

6

Avalinx committed intentional acts;
ii.

7

SHFL's allegations that Avalinx targeted SHFL with knowledge
that SHFL is located in this forum—in conjunction with Avalinx's

9
B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP
100 N ORTH CITY PARKWAY , SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS , NV
(702) 382 -2101

8

president Conor Seabrook's admission that he traveled to Las

10

Vegas, Nevada, to perform research for Avalinx's applications—are

11

sufficient to show that Avalinx expressly aimed its conduct at

12

SHFL in the District of Nevada, and establishes that Avalinx has

13

done "something more" than operate a passive website under

14

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.

15

2012); and
iii.

16

SHFL's allegations that it suffered harm to its business, reputation

17

and goodwill as a result of Avalinx's infringement, the effects of

18

which SHFL felt in Nevada, where SHFL is headquartered and

19

which is the heart of the gaming industry, are sufficient to establish

20

that Avalinx caused harm that it knew was likely to occur in the

21

District of Nevada;
b.

22

SHFL's claims arose out of Avalinx's forum-related activities because but

23

for Avalinx's alleged infringement, which reached into the District of

24

Nevada and caused SHFL harm here, SHFL's claims would not have

25

arisen; and
c.

26
27
28

2.

jurisdiction over Avalinx is reasonable.

The District of Nevada is the proper venue for this action because the events giving rise to
SHFL's claims—namely, the injury SHFL alleges it suffered as a result of consumer

014334\0004\1758726.1

2

1

confusion, and other harm resulting from Avalinx's infringement—occurred at SHFL's

2

principal place of business in Las Vegas in the District of Nevada. Transfer of this case to

3

a different venue would merely shift the cost burden to SHFL, which would be improper

4

under Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964).

5

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT

6

Avalinx's Motion be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
December 10, 2012.
ENTERED this ___ day of December, 2012.

7
8

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP
100 N ORTH CITY PARKWAY , SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS , NV
(702) 382 -2101

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12

Respectfully submitted by:

13

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP

14
15
16
17
18

/s/ Laura E. Bielinski_____________
Tamara Beatty Peterson (# 5218)
Laura E. Bielinski (# 10516)
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614

19

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, Inc.
f/k/a SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.

20

Approved as to form and content by:

21

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. CURTAS

22

/s/ John A. Curtas__________________
John A. Curtas, Esq.
3275 S. Jones Blvd., Suite 105
Las Vegas, NV 89146

23
24
25
26

Attorneys for Defendant
AVALINX, INC., identified as
AVALINX, LLC in the caption

27
28

014334\0004\1758726.1

3