The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall
Present: The Honorable CONSUELO B. MARSHALL
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS/OFF THE RECORD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHETHER THE COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS AND WHETHER VENUE IS PROPER IN THIS DISTRICT
The matter before this Court is Plaintiff Haas Automation, Inc.'s Complaint, filed on May 31, 2012. (Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl."), EFC. No. 1.) The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act; (2) copyright infringement; (3) false designation in interstate commerce; (4) unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; and (5) false advertising pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17500. (Id.) Plaintiff is a California corporation having its principal place of business in Oxnard, California. (Compl. at ¶ 4.) Defendant Brian Denny is an individual residing and conducting business in Idaho. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant ASI Machine and Supply is a purported business entity conducting business in Idaho. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant CNCPROS.net is an Idaho corporation conducting business in Idaho. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendant Automated Solutions, Inc. is also an Idaho corporation conducting business in Idaho. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendant Does 1-10 are allegedly "agents, successors, employees, or otherwise responsible parties" for Defendants Denny, ASI, CNC, and Automated Solutions (collectively, "Defendants"). (Id. at ¶ 12.)
Because the basis for personal jurisdiction and venue in this case are not clear based upon the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court issues the following Order to Show Cause:
It is not clear that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Due process requires that, "in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges that California has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they "regularly conduct business via the Internet in California," thereby maintaining the requisite minimum contacts under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). (Compl. at ¶ 3.) However, Defendants do not appear to have any other contact with California other than using the Internet to register domain names. It is also unclear whether Defendants conduct business in California, as the Complaint only alleges that Defendants reside and conduct business in Idaho. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-9.) Thus, it is not apparent that Defendants have the requisite minimum contacts with California to be subject to personal jurisdiction here.
It also is not clear to the Court that the Central District is the proper venue. Venue in federal question cases is proper in the following judicial districts, except as otherwise provided by special venue rules: (1) where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) where any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). A corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(a) further states that "[c]ivil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under the Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found." Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) "because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein arose in this District." (Compl. at ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Defendants ...