Switch, Ltd. v. Switch, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with leave to refile within fourteen (14) days o f the close of jurisdictional discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for the resolution of any requests related to the jurisdictional discovery.Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/12/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

SWITCH, LTD., a Nevada limited liability
company,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
SWITCH, INC., a Washington corporation,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:18-cv-00738-KJD-CWH

Before the Court is Defendant Switch Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (#5) to which Plaintiff Switch, LTD.
responded (#7), and Defendant replied (#8). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (#17) to which Defendant responded (#18), and Plaintiff
replied (#19).
In this trademark infringement action, Plaintiff Switch, LTD., a Nevada company, alleges
that Defendant Switch, Inc., a Washington corporation, has employed a confusingly similar name
and logo to market its services thereby decreasing the value of Plaintiff’s trademarks and other
intellectual property. (#7, at 5). Defendant has not yet answered the complaint but has instead
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (#5). It claims that its contacts with Nevada
are insufficient to subject the company to personal jurisdiction in this Court. Id. at 6–7. Plaintiff
admits there is not general personal jurisdiction over Defendant in Nevada but counters that
Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to confer specific personal jurisdiction.
(#7, at 3–4). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has attended tradeshows in Nevada,
has marketed its products using the hashtag “#LasVegas,” has targeted Nevada with its website,
and has derived revenue from Nevada-based clients. Id. at 2. If true, Defendant would indeed be

1
2

subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada.
Defendant’s CEO, Chris Hopen, denies that the company has received revenue from

3

Nevada-based companies or that it has targeted the state in any way. (#5, Exh. 1). Hopen has

4

provided two declarations to that effect. (#5, Exh. 1; #8, Exh. 1). In response, Plaintiff submitted

5

evidence from Defendant’s own website that suggests Defendant has indeed provided its

6

products and services to at least one Nevada company, Zappos. (#7, Exh. A). On that basis,

7

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to allow limited

8

jurisdictional discovery to probe the extent of Defendant’s commercial contacts within the state

9

of Nevada.

10

The Court has broad discretion to grant leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Laub v.

11

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). It should allow such discovery

12

where the facts supporting jurisdiction are unclear or controverted or where discovery would

13

assist the Court’s jurisdictional analysis. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.

14

2008). While Plaintiff need not make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction to warrant

15

discovery, it must demonstrate more than a “hunch” that the discovery will uncover facts

16

relevant to Defendant’s ties to Nevada. Id.; Hall v. United States, No. 16-cv-02395-BAS-RBB,

17

2017 WL 3252240, *4 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017).

18

Here, Plaintiff has presented evidence from Defendant’s own website that Defendant has

19

interacted with Nevada residents to market its products and services. If proven, that fact would

20

both contradict Defendant’s sworn declaration and likely subject Defendant to personal

21

jurisdiction in Nevada. As a result, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional

22

Discovery (#17) subject to the limitations enumerated below. It also denies without prejudice

23

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#5) pending discovery.

24

Next, the Court must determine the scope of jurisdictional discovery it will allow.

25

Plaintiff seeks discovery to explore four of Defendant’s potential contacts with Nevada: (1)

26

whether Defendant’s marketing and advertising targeted Nevada (#17, at 5–6); (2) whether

27

Defendant’s CEO Chris Hopen attended the MONEY 20/20 Convention in Las Vegas in his

28

capacity as CEO (id. at 6); whether Defendant has a business relationship with Nevada-based

-2-

1

Zappos sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (id. at 6–7); and whether, and to what extent,

2

Defendant’s website specifically targets Nevada residents (id. at 7). To that end, Plaintiff asks

3

that it “be permitted to send written discovery requests,” to “depose [CEO] Chris Hopen,” and to

4

“send a subpoena to Zappos to learn the true details of the relationship between Defendant and

5

Zappos.” Id. at 5, 6.

6

Defendant does not necessarily oppose Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.

7

(#18, at 1). It does, however, request that the Court limit the scope of that inquiry to the

8

discovery Plaintiff has requested, namely: written discovery requests to probe jurisdictional

9

issues, the deposition of CEO Hopen, and one third-party subpoena to Zappos to explore the

10
11

relationship between the two entities. Id. at 1–2.1
Due to the unclear and controverted nature of Defendant’s ties to Nevada, limited

12

discovery will assist the Court in its jurisdictional analysis. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020

13

(discovery is appropriate where the facts bearing on jurisdiction are unclear or controverted).

14

However, the Court sees no reason to expand discovery outside of what Plaintiff requested in its

15

original motion. Accordingly, the Court opens jurisdictional discovery for ninety (90) days.

16

During that time (1) Plaintiff may send written discovery to explore whether Defendant’s

17

contacts with Nevada—including its web presence and advertising—are sufficient to subject

18

Defendant to personal jurisdiction in Nevada; (2) Plaintiff may depose Defendant’s CEO Chris

19

Hopen; and (3) Plaintiff may subpoena Zappos to evaluate whether it has a business relationship

20

with Defendant and whether that relationship is enough to confer personal jurisdiction.

21

If it wishes, Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of the

22

close of jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff shall respond to the renewed motion to dismiss in

23

fourteen (14) days, and Defendant may reply in seven (7) days. The Court is cognizant of

24

Plaintiff’s concern that it might uncover additional contacts between Defendant and the forum

25

state during the course discovery. If the Plaintiff discovers such information, the parties are to

26

meet and confer to facilitate further discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); LR 26-7. If after the

27
1

28

Defendant also requests that the Court delay discovery until after a scheduled settlement conference. (#18,
at 1). To the Court’s knowledge, that settlement conference was scheduled for December 12, 2018. (#19, at 2). The
Court assumes that conference has occurred and that it need not delay discovery any longer.

-3-

1

meet and confer the parties are unable to agree, they may petition the magistrate judge for

2

appropriate relief, including expanding the time limitations and scope of this order.

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery (#17) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#5) is DENIED
with leave to refile within fourteen (14) days of the close of jurisdictional discovery;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge

8

assigned to this case for the resolution of any requests related to the jurisdictional discovery.

9

Dated this 12th day of March, 2019.

10
11
12

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-