Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Celgene Corp. v. Gupta

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 23, 2018

SUSHIL K GUPTA and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants,



         This is an action to enforce the Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 etseq.; the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann § 56:8-1 et seq.;[1] and the New Jersey Unfair Competition Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:4-1.[2] Plaintiff Celgene Corporation, a Delaware corporation, sues Sushil K Gupta, a resident of New Delhi, India. Celgene seeks a default judgment. Defendant Gupta has not responded to the complaint and the clerk has entered default. For the reasons stated herein, Celgene's motion for default judgment is denied.

         I. DISCUSSION

         "[T]he entry of a default judgment is left primarily to the discretion of the district court." Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 1951)). Because the entry of a default judgment prevents the resolution of claims on the merits, "this court does not favor entry of defaults and default judgments." United States v. $55, 518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1984). Thus, before entering default judgment, the court must determine whether die "unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusions of law." DirecTV, Inc. v. Asher, No. 3-cv-1969, 2006 WL 680533, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2006) (citing 10A Wright 8b Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2688 (3d ed. 1998)).

         "[Defendants are deemed to have admitted the factual allegations of die Complaint by virtue of their default, except diose factual allegations related to the amount of damages." Doe v. Simone, No. 12-cv-5825, 2013 WL 3772532, at *2 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013). While "courts must accept the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations as true," they "need not accept the plaintiffs factual allegations regarding damages as true." Id. (citing Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F.Supp.2d 532, 536 (D.N.J. 2008)). Moreover, if a court finds evidentiary support to be lacking, it may order or permit a plaintiff seeking default judgment to provide additional evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint. Id. at *2-3.

         Before a court can enter a default judgment, the court must be satisfied of personal jurisdiction and effective service of process.

         A. Personal Jurisdiction

         Personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, may be waived, and a court generally will not raise personal jurisdiction sua sponte as grounds for dismissal. See Allaham v. Naddaf, 635 Fed.Appx. 32, 36 (3d Cir. 2015). Nonetheless, when a default judgment is requested, a court is required to make a threshold determination regarding any jurisdictional defects. See id.', Bolden v. Se. Perm. Transp. Auth., 953 F.2d 807, 812 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan R.R. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). If a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court does not have authority to render a default judgment, and any such judgment will be deemed void. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2008). "In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction." Allaham, 635 Fed.Appx. at 36-37 (citing Eurofins Pharma U.S. Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2010); Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009)). If an evidentiary hearing is held, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. See Control Screening LLC v. Tech. Application & Prod. Co., 687 F.3d 163, 167 (3d Cir. 2012); Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142 n.l (3d Cir. 1992).

         "A district court sitting in diversity may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent allowed under the law of the forum state." Metcalfe, 566 F.3d at 330; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A) (authorizing the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located"). In a state such as New Jersey, where the long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Constitution, the standard for a federal court sitting in diversity is whether a "defendant ha[s] 'minimum contacts," such "that the exercise of jurisdiction comports) with 'tradition notions of fair play and substantial justice.™ Allaham, 635 Fed.Appx. at 37 (Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945))).

         There are two distinct theories under which personal jurisdiction can arise: general and specific. Grimes v. Vitalink Commc'ns Corp., 17 F.3d 1553, 1559 (3d Cir. 1994). A court has general jurisdiction when a defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state. O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 2007). A court has specific jurisdiction when a plaintiffs claim arises from a defendant's actions within the forum state, such that the defendant could "reasonably anticipate being haled into [the state's] court[s]." Vetrotex Certainteed Corp. v. Consol. Fiber Glass Prods. Co., 75 F.3d 147, 151 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         Celgene does not claim that this court has general jurisdiction over Gupta. Rather, Celgene argues that the court has specific jurisdiction because Gupta sells its allegedly infringing pharmaceuticals throughout the United States, including New Jersey.

         To satisfy federal due process limits (incorporated by the New Jersey long-arm statute), a defendant's minimum contacts are examined in relation to "the nature of the interactions and type of jurisdiction asserted." Telcordia Tech Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., 458 F.3d 172, 177 (3d Cir. 2006). «[T]he relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation ... [is] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction." Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977). For specific jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has delineated three due process requirements: First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant "purposefully directed [its] activities at the forum." O'Connor, 496 F.3d at 317 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, "the litigation must 'arise out of or relate to' at least one of those activities." Id. (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). Third, if the plaintiff satisfies the first two requirements, "a court may consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise *comport[s] with fair play and substantial justice.™ Id. (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 476} (internal quotation marks omitted).

         A defendant can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state he or she never entered:

Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum State. Although territorial presence frequently will enhance a potential defendant's affiliation with a State and reinforce the reasonable foreseeability of suit there, it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted. So long as a commercial actor's efforts are "purposefully directed" toward ...

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.