UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA

365 CONNECT, LLC CI VI L ACTI ON
VERSUS NO. 14- 995
SOMERSET PACI FI C, LLC & SECTI ON F
J ASON MARTI N
ORDER & REASONS
Bef or e t he Cour t i s J ason Mar t i n' s mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack
of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on and i mpr oper venue or t o t r ansf er venue.
For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he mot i on t o di smi ss i s GRANTED.
Background
Thi s i s a copyr i ght i nf r i ngement and br each of cont r act case.
365 Connect i s a Loui si ana company t hat pr ovi des web- based
comput er sof t war e devel opment ser vi ces t o pr oper t y owner s and
manager s i n t he mul t i f ami l y housi ng i ndust r y. Somer set Paci f i c i s
a pr oper t y management company r egi st er ed and oper at i ng i n I daho and
J ason Mar t i n i s a web devel oper and consul t ant who l i ves and wor ks
i n I daho. 365 al l eges t hat Somer set i ni t i al l y cont r act ed wi t h i t
f or web- desi gn ser vi ces but t hen abr upt l y t er mi nat ed t he agr eement .
365 f ur t her al l eges t hat Somer set t hen hi r ed J ason Mar t i n f or t he
speci f i c pur pose of copyi ng websi t e desi gns pr evi ousl y cr eat ed by
365. On Apr i l 30, 2014, 365 f i l ed sui t agai nst Somer set and Mar t i n
al l egi ng copyr i ght i nf r i ngement , br each of cont r act , and ot her
r el at ed cl ai ms. Mar t i n now moves t o di smi ss f or l ack of per sonal
1
j ur i sdi ct i on and i mpr oper venue, or , al t er nat i vel y, t o t r ansf er
venue.
I .
Rul e 12( b) ( 2) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e al l ows
a def endant t o chal l enge t he Cour t s exer ci se of per sonal
j ur i sdi ct i on over i t . When a nonr esi dent def endant , l i ke Mar t i n,
seeks di smi ssal f or l ack of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on under Rul e
12( b) ( 2) , t he pl ai nt i f f bear s t he bur den of est abl i shi ng t he
Cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on over t he def endant , but need onl y make a pr i ma
f aci e case i f t he Cour t r ul es wi t hout an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. See
J ohnst on v. Mul t i dat a Sys. I nt l Cor p. , 523 F. 3d 602, 609 ( 5
t h
Ci r .
2008) ; see al so Luv N Car e v. I nst a- Mi x, I nc. , 438 F. 3d 465, 469
( 5t h Ci r . 2006) . The Cour t t akes al l uncont r over t ed al l egat i ons i n
t he compl ai nt as t r ue and r esol ves any conf l i ct s i n t he pl ai nt i f f s
f avor . Wi l son v. Bel i n, 20 F. 3d 644, 648 ( 5t h Ci r . 1994) . The
Cour t i s not r est r i ct ed t o pl eadi ngs, but may consi der af f i davi t s,
i nt er r ogat or i es, deposi t i ons, or any ot her appr opr i at e met hod of
di scover y. I d. ; see J obe v. ATR Mkt g. , I nc. , 87 F. 3d 751, 752 ( 5t h
Ci r . 1996) .
I I .
A.
The Cour t may exer ci se per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over a
nonr esi dent def endant onl y i f t wo r equi r ement s ar e sat i sf i ed: ( 1)
t he f or umst at e s l ong- ar mst at ut e conf er s per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on;
2
and ( 2) t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on compor t s wi t h due pr ocess.
See Sei f er t h v. Hel i copt er os At uner os, I nc. , 472 F. 3d 266, 270 ( 5t h
Ci r . 2006) . Because t he l i mi t s of Loui si ana s l ong- ar mst at ut e ar e
coext ensi ve wi t h t he l i mi t s of const i t ut i onal due pr ocess, t he t wo-
par t i nqui r y mer ges i nt o one: whet her t hi s Cour t s exer ci se of
j ur i sdi ct i on over t he def endant woul d of f end due pr ocess. See La.
R. S. 13: 3201( B) ; Luv N Car e, 438 F. 3d at 469; see al so
El ect r osour ce, I nc. v. Hor i zon Bat t er y Techs. , Lt d. , 176 F. 3d 867,
871 ( 5t h Ci r . 1999) .
The Due Pr ocess Cl ause pr ot ect s an i ndi vi dual s l i ber t y
i nt er est i n not bei ng subj ect t o t he bi ndi ng j udgment s of a f or um
wi t h whi ch he has est abl i shed no meani ngf ul cont act s, t i es, or
r el at i ons. Bur ger Ki ng Cor p. v. Rudzewi cz, 471 U. S. 462, 471- 72
( 1985) ( ci t i ng I nt l Shoe Co. v. Washi ngt on, 326 U. S. 310, 319
( 1945) ) ; Hel i copt er os Naci onal es de Col ombi a, S. A. v. Hal l , 466
U. S. 408, 413- 14 ( 1994) ( The Due Pr ocess Cl ause l i mi t s t he Cour t s
power t o asser t per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on over a nonr esi dent
def endant . ) . I n or der t o concl ude t hat t he exer ci se of per sonal
j ur i sdi ct i on compor t s wi t h t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, i t must be shown
t hat : ( 1) t he def endant has pur posef ul l y avai l ed i t sel f of t he
benef i t s and pr ot ect i ons of t he f or um st at e by est abl i shi ng
mi ni mum cont act s wi t h t hat st at e; and ( 2) t he exer ci se of
per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on does not of f end t r adi t i onal not i ons of f ai r
pl ay and subst ant i al j ust i ce. Choi ce Heal t hcar e, I nc. v. Kai ser
3
Foundat i on Heal t h Pl an of Col or ado, 615 F. 3d 364, 367 ( 5
t h
Ci r .
2010) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The mi ni mumcont act s i nqui r y i s f act
i nt ensi ve and no one el ement i s deci si ve; r at her t he t ouchst one i s
whet her t he def endant s conduct shows t hat [ he] r easonabl y
ant i ci pat es bei ng hal ed i nt o cour t i n t he f or umst at e. McFadi n
v. Ger ber , 587 F. 3d 753, 759 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2009) .
The mi ni mum cont act s i nqui r y t akes t wo f or ms, and t he
const i t ut i onal l i mi t at i ons on t he exer ci se of per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on
di f f er dependi ng on whet her a cour t i s asked t o exer ci se gener al or
speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on over t he def endant . Choi ce Heal t hcar e, 615
F. 3d at 368 ( The mi ni mumcont act s pr ong of t he t wo- par t t est may
be f ur t her subdi vi ded i nt o cont act s t hat gi ve r i se t o gener al
per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on and speci f i c per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. ) .
Regar dl ess of whet her t he l awsui t i s r el at ed t o t he def endant s
cont act s wi t h t he f or um, cour t s may exer ci se gener al j ur i sdi ct i on
over any l awsui t br ought agai nst a def endant t hat has subst ant i al ,
cont i nuous, and syst emat i c gener al cont act s wi t h t he f or umst at e.
See Sei f er t h, 472 F. 3d at 271 ( ci t i ng Hel i copt er os Nact i onal es, 466
at 413- 14) ; Moncr i ef Oi l I nt l I nc. v. OAO Gazpr om, 481 F. 3d 309,
312 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2007) ( Random, f or t ui t ous, or at t enuat ed cont act s ar e
not suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh j ur i sdi ct i on. ) . I f , on t he ot her
hand, a def endant has r el at i vel y f ew cont act s, a cour t may st i l l
exer ci se speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i n a sui t ar i si ng out of or r el at ed
t o t he def endant s cont act s wi t h t he f or um. I d. Gener al
4
j ur i sdi ct i on f ocuses on i nci dent s of cont i nuous act i vi t y wi t hi n t he
di sput ed f or um; speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on i s mor e const r ai ned by vi r t ue
of a ver y l i mi t ed nexus wi t h t he f or um.
I f a pl ai nt i f f demonst r at es mi ni mum cont act s bet ween t he
def endant and t he f or umst at e, t hen t he Cour t may exer ci se per sonal
j ur i sdi ct i on unl ess t he def endant makes a compel l i ng case t hat
t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on i s unf ai r or unr easonabl e. Bur ger
Ki ng, 471 U. S. at 477; Wi en Ai r Al aska, I nc. v. Br andt , 195 F. 3d
208, 215 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 1999) . I n det er mi ni ng whet her t he exer ci se of
j ur i sdi ct i on i s f ai r and r easonabl e, t he Cour t consi der s cer t ai n
f ai r ness f act or s, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) t he bur den on t he non- r esi dent
def endant ; ( 2) t he i nt er est s of t he f or um st at e; ( 3) t he
pl ai nt i f f s i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng r el i ef ; ( 4) t he i nt er st at e
j udi ci al syst em s i nt er est i n t he most ef f i ci ent r esol ut i on of
cont r over si es; and ( 5) t he shar ed i nt er est s of t he sever al st at es
i n f ur t her i ng f undament al soci al pol i ci es. See Nuovo Pi gnone v.
St or man Asi a M/ V, 310 F. 3d 374, 382 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2002) ( ci t at i on
omi t t ed) .
Mar t i n cont ends t hat t he Cour t l acks per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on
over hi m because t he pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o al l ege a suf f i ci ent
j ur i sdi ct i onal nexus bet ween hi m and t he St at e of Loui si ana.
Pl ai nt i f f count er s t hat Mar t i n has cont act s wi t h Loui si ana
5
suf f i ci ent t o conf er speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on.
1
B.
I n cont r ast t o gener al , al l - pur pose j ur i sdi ct i on, speci f i c
j ur i sdi ct i on i s conf i ned t o adj udi cat i on of i ssues der i vi ng f r om,
or connect ed wi t h, t he ver y cont r over sy t hat est abl i shes
j ur i sdi ct i on. Goodyear Dunl op Ti r es Oper at i ons v. Br own, 131 S.
Ct . 2846, 2851 ( 2011) . The Fi f t h Ci r cui t has ar t i cul at ed a t hr ee-
st ep per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on i nqui r y f ul l y appl i cabl e t o
j ur i sdi ct i on quest i ons gener at ed by t he I nt er net :
( 1) Di d t he pl ai nt i f f s cause of act i on ar i se
out of or r esul t f r om t he def endant s
f or um- r el at ed cont act s?
( 2) Di d t he def endant pur posef ul l y di r ect i t s
act i vi t i es t owar d t he f or um st at e or
pur posef ul l y avai l i t sel f of t he
pr i vi l ege of conduct i ng act i vi t i es
t her ei n; and
( 3) Woul d t he exer ci se of per sonal
j ur i sdi ct i on over t he def endant be
r easonabl e and f ai r ?
Per vasi ve Sof t war e, I nc. v. Lexwar e GMBH & Co. KG, 688 F. 3d 214,
227 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2012) .
2
[ T] he def endant s cont act s [ wi t h t he f or um]
must be mor e t han r andom, f or t ui t ous, or at t enuat ed, or of t he
uni l at er al act i vi t y of anot her par t y or t hi r d per son, ; however ,
1
I t i s undi sput ed t hat t hi s Cour t l acks gener al j ur i sdi ct i on
over Mar t i n.
2
I f t he pl ai nt i f f est abl i shes ( 1) and ( 2) , t hen t he bur den
shi f t s t o t he def endant , who must show t hat i t woul d be unf ai r or
unr easonabl e t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on. I d.
6
t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t obser ves t hat , unl i ke gener al j ur i sdi ct i on,
speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on may exi st wher e t her e ar e onl y i sol at ed or
spor adi c cont act s, so l ong as t he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mr el at es t o or
ar i ses out of t hose cont act s. I TL I nt l , I nc. v. Const enl a, S. A. ,
669 F. 3d 493, 499 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2012) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
Fi nal l y, speci f i c per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on i s cl ai m- speci f i c;
t hat i s, i f a pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms r el at e t o di f f er ent f or umcont act s
of t he def endant , t hen speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on must be est abl i shed
f or each cl ai m. Sei f er t h v. Hel i copt er os At uner os, I nc. , 472 F. 3d
266, 274- 75 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 2006) ; McFadi n v. Ger ber , 587 F. 3d 753, 759
( 5
t h
Ci r . 2009) , cer t . deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 68 ( 2010) .
C.
Under t he pr i nci pl es of speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on, t he Cour t must
det er mi ne whet her t he al l eged cont act s wi t h Loui si ana ar i se out of
or ar e r el at ed t o t he asser t ed cl ai ms. Pl ai nt i f f r ai ses t hr ee
cl ai ms agai nst Mar t i n. Fi r st , pl ai nt i f f al l eges copyr i ght
i nf r i ngement :
66.
Def endant s Somer set and J ason Mar t i n used Somer set ' s
subscr i ber access t o 365 Connect s wor ks of aut hor shi p i n
or der t o copy t hemand/ or cr eat e der i vat i ves t her ei n.
67.
Somer set ' s websi t es, as devel oped by J ason Mar t i n under
Somer set ' s di r ect i on, ar e pr obat i vel y and subst ant i al l y
si mi l ar t o t he t empl at es cr eat ed f or t he 365 Connect
subscr i ber pl at f or m.
68.
Somer set ' s use of t he i nf r i ngi ng websi t es cr eat ed by
7
J ason Mar t i n has depr i ved 365 Connect of r evenue.
69.
The i nf r i ngi ng devel opment of t he websi t es was wi l l f ul .
Second, pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat Mar t i n ci r cumvent ed access cont r ol s
i n vi ol at i on of t he Di gi t al Mi l l enni um Copyr i ght Act ( DMCA) .
Speci f i cal l y, pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat :
74.
365 Connect empl oyed a number of t echnol ogi cal measur es
t o pr ecl ude unaut hor i zed access and copyi ng of t he 365
I nt el l ect ual Pr oper t y, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o
i mpl ement at i on of a user name and passwor d scheme l i mi t i ng
access t o aut hor i zed user s.
75.
Def endant Somer set knowi ngl y and wi l l i ngl y ci r cumvent ed
t hese t echnol ogi cal measur es by pr ovi di ng J ason Mar t i n
wi t h access t o t he 365 Connect t echnol ogy pl at f or mand/ or
accessi ng i t di r ect l y f or pur poses of cr eat i ng
unaut hor i zed der i vat i ve wor ks and/ or copi es. J ason
Mar t i n knowi ngl y and wi l f ul l y used such access f or t hese
pur poses.
Thi r d, pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat Mar t i n r emoved copyr i ght management
i nf or mat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he DMCA:
79.
365 Connect pr ovi ded copyr i ght not i ce and aut hor
at t r i but i on i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng bot h publ i c not i ce
and/ or HTML met adat a, comment s, and/ or ot her sour ce
code wi t hi n t he 365 I nt el l ect ual Pr oper t y.
80.
I n cr eat i ng copi es of t he 365 I nt el l ect ual Pr oper t y
Def endant J ason Mar t i n, on behal f of and on i nst r uct i on
f r omDef endant Somer set , knowi ngl y and wi t h t he i nt ent t o
f aci l i t at e or conceal i nf r i ngement i nt ent i onal l y r emoved
such copyr i ght management i nf or mat i on.
81.
Def endant s di d t hen knowi ngl y and wi t h t he i nt ent t o
8
f aci l i t at e or conceal i nf r i ngement pr ovi de f al se
copyr i ght management i nf or mat i on cl ai mi ng Somer set hel d
copyr i ght i n t he i nf r i ngi ng wor ks.
Each of t hese cl ai ms ar i se out of t he same al l eged f or umcont act s.
I t i s undi sput ed t hat Mar t i n l i ves and wor ks i n I daho and t hat al l
of hi s al l eged act s occur r ed i n I daho.
3
Pl ai nt i f f ' s onl y basi s f or
cl ai mi ng cont act s bet ween Mar t i n and t hi s f or umi s t he al l egat i on
t hat Mar t i n pur posef ul l y di r ect ed hi s t or t i ous act i vi t i es at
pl ai nt i f f , a Loui si ana company. Pl ai nt i f f submi t s t hi s i s
suf f i ci ent t o conf er speci f i c per sonal j ur i sdi ct i on. The Cour t
di sagr ees.
Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat under Cal der v. J ones, 465 U. S. 783
( 1984) , t hi s Cour t has speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on over a nonr esi dent
def endant who engages i n i nt ent i onal t or t i ous conduct desi gned t o
i nj ur e t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he f or um st at e. But Cal der i s mor e
l i mi t ed i n scope t han pl ai nt i f f suggest s. I n Cal der , t he Supr eme
Cour t hel d t hat speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on was war r ant ed because t he
def endant ' s act i vi t i es i nt ent i onal l y made t he f or um " t he f ocal
poi nt . . . of t he har msuf f er ed. " Mor eover , t he U. S. Cour t of Appeal s
f or t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat t he " ef f ect s t est " of Cal der i s
not a subst i t ut e f or a nonr esi dent ' s mi ni mum cont act s t hat
demonst r at e pur posef ul avai l ment of t he benef i t s of t he f or um
st at e. Al l r ed v. Moor e & Pet er son, 117 F. 3d 278, 286 ( 5t h Ci r .
1997) . I nst ead, Cal der s appl i cabi l i t y i s l i mi t ed t o cases i n
3
I n f act , Mar t i n has never even been t o Loui si ana.
9
whi ch al l egedl y t or t i ous act s. . . wer e expr essl y ai med at t he f or um
st at e and t he nonr esi dent def endant s knew t hat t hei r act s woul d
have an i mpact on t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he f or um st at e. I d.
For eseeabl e i nj ur y al one i s not suf f i ci ent t o conf er speci f i c
j ur i sdi ct i on, absent t he di r ect i on of speci f i c act s t owar d t he
f or um. Wi en Ai r Al aska, I nc. v. Br andt , 195 F. 3d 208, 212 ( 5t h
Ci r . 1999) .
Pl ai nt i f f ' s i nvocat i on of Cal der f al l s shor t . Ther e i s si mpl y
no evi dence t hat any of Mar t i n' s act s " wer e expr essl y ai med at t he
f or umst at e and t he nonr esi dent def endant [ ] knew t hat [ hi s] act s
woul d have an i mpact on t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he f or umst at e. Al l r ed,
117 F. 3d at 286. I nst ead, any cont act s bet ween Mar t i n and
Loui si ana r est on " t he mer e f or t ui t y" t hat pl ai nt i f f happened t o be
a Loui si ana company. See Hol t Oi l & Gas Cor p. v. Har vey, 801 F. 2d
773 ( 5
t h
Ci r . 1986) . Pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o sat i sf y i t s pr i ma f aci e
case of speci f i c j ur i sdi ct i on as t o Mar t i n.
Accor di ngl y, Mar t i n' s mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack of per sonal
j ur i sdi ct i on i s GRANTED
New Or l eans, Loui si ana, August 11, 2014
_______________________________
MARTI N L. C. FELDMAN
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE
10