Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Tracy Learning

January 29, 2009

KEPNER-TREGOE, INC. PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRACY LEARNING, INC. DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wolfson, United States District Judge

OPINION

Presently before the Court is a motion brought by Defendant Tracy Learning, Inc. ("Defendant"), to dismiss Plaintiff Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has committed acts of copyright infringement in the State of New Jersey. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located in Princeton, New Jersey. Plaintiff's Compl. ¶1. As a part of its business, Plaintiff owns copyright registrations for works known as "Resolve: Notes and Reference" and "Problem Solving & Decision Making: Notes and Reference." Id. ¶6. Defendant is a Utah Corporation that maintains its principal place of Business in Orem, Utah. Id. ¶2. In addition to its operations in Utah, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of copyright infringement in New Jersey. Id.

Plaintiff initiated the instant action in this Court on April 2, 2008. In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts one count of copyright infringement. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "had access to [Plaintiff's] copyrighted works and has copied, used, distributed, published and/or caused to be published one or more written works, including a work known as 'Systematic Problem Solving,' [sic] that infringes [Plaintiff's] copyrights." Id. ¶8. As a result, Plaintiff asks this Court to permanently enjoin Defendant from directly or indirectly distributing materials which infringe Plaintiff's copyrights, statutory damages as provided by 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2), an accounting of Defendant's profits attributable to the alleged copyright infringement, and attorney's fees and costs. Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on August 12, 2008. On a conference call with the parties on January 6, 2009, Defendant agreed to submit a supplemental Declaration regarding jurisdiction from a corporate representative. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Personal Jurisdiction

The present motion challenges whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Once challenged, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. General Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir. 2001) (finding the plaintiff must demonstrate "[a] nexus between the defendant, the forum and the litigation."). However, given that this Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Tocci v. Antioch University, No. 07-1341, 2007 WL 2362592, at *2 ( D.N.J., August 15, 2007) (citing Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smit, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, in considering Defendant's Motion, this Court takes Plaintiff's allegations as true and resolves all factual disputes in Plaintiff's favor. Miller, 384 F.3d at 97.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) requires a district court to exercise personal jurisdiction according to the law of the state where it sits. In this instance, the New Jersey long-arm statute establishes New Jersey's jurisdictional reach conterminous to that allowed for under the U.S. Constitution, subject only to due process of law. Thus, the central inquiry is whether Defendant has "certain minimum contacts with. . . .[New Jersey] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation omitted). At this point, the Court must determine whether it has general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant.

B. General and Specific Jurisdiction

The Court may assert personal jurisdiction in one of two ways. General jurisdiction over non-forum related claims is proper if the defendant has engaged in "systematic and continuous" activities in the forum state. General jurisdiction allows a court to assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-court defendant when "that party can be called to answer any claim against her, regardless of whether the subject matter of the cause of action has any connection to the forum." Mellon Bank P.S.F.S. v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1992). The assertion of general jurisdiction over non-forum related activities is proper when the defendant has engaged in "systematic and continuous" activities in the forum state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414-16.

The inquiry as to which specific jurisdiction exists has three parts. First, Defendants must have "purposefully directed [their] activities" at the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)(quotation marks omitted). Second, the litigation must "arise out of or relate to" at least one of those activities. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414; Grimes v. Vitalink Commc'ns Corp., 17 F.3d 1553, 1559 (3d Cir. 1994). Finally, if the prior two requirements are meet, the Court may consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise "comport[s] with 'fair play and substantial justice.'" Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476 (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320).

At the threshold level, the defendant must have "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). Physical entrance is not required. See Burger King, 472 U.S. at 476. But what is necessary is a deliberate targeting of the forum. O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., No. 05-3288, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17932, at *7 (3d Cir. Jul. 26, 2007). Thus, the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant" is insufficient. See Hanson, 357 U.S. 253. Further, contacts with a state's citizens that take place outside the state are not purposeful contacts with the state itself. See Gehling v. St. George's Sch. of Med., Ltd., 773 F.2d 539, 542-43 (3d Cir. 1985). Moreover, the jurisdictional nexus must also be the result ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.