Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00920/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00920-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125(a) False representation of goods sold in interstate commerce

---

1 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BIGDANSFITNESS, LLC, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR 

TRANSFER [Doc. No. 3] 

INTRODUCTION 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer jurisdiction 

based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Defendant seeks an order 

dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(2) and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). If the 

Court is not inclined to dismiss the case, Defendant seeks an order transferring the case to 

the United States District Court in Moscow, Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). 

 Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion in which Plaintiff maintains 

it disagrees with Defendant’s contention regarding its connection to California but it is 

willing to stipulate to transferring the action. Plaintiff maintains counsel for Defendant 

refused Plaintiff’s offer to stipulate to the transfer of the matter because Plaintiff did not 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

respond to Defendant’s counsel’s request to meet and confer prior to filing the pending 

motion. Plaintiff contends counsel is under the mistaken impression the matter may be 

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff further contends the only effect Defendant’s refusal to 

stipulate is a waste of judicial resources and delay in transferring the matter. 

 In reply, Defendant contends Plaintiff does not dispute the fact Defendant resides in 

Idaho and has no significant contacts with California and provides no evidence or argument 

refuting the motion. Defendant further contends Plaintiff now offers to stipulate to 

transferring the matter but previously failed to respond to Defendant’s attempts to meet 

and confer prior to filing the motion. Defendant maintains it was forced to incur significant 

fees and costs in drafting and filing the motion. Defendant argues Plaintiff now seeks to 

stipulate to transferring the matter to conserve judicial resources but its failure to meet and 

confer in good faith is what lead to the filing of the motion. Defendant maintains the Court 

should still consider Defendant’s request for dismissal notwithstanding Plaintiff’s 

stipulation to transfer, because there is a significant difference between a dismissal and 

transfer of the case, and this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper 

venue. 

 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

or transfer and transfers the action. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Personal Jurisdiction 

 Defendant argues this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

because it lacks the requisite minimum contacts with California. 

 Under Rule 12(b)(2), a court may dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction over the 

person. The Ninth Circuit has established a two prong test for determining if the Court’s 

assertion of personal jurisdiction is proper. Jurisdiction must comport with: (1) the state 

long-arm statute, and (2) the constitutional requirement of due process. Mattel, Inc., v. 

Greiner & Hausser GMBH, 354 F.3d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Ziegler v. Indian 

River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 As to the first prong, California’s long arm statute provides that “a court of this state 

may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this State 

or of the United States.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10. Because California law allows the 

exercise of jurisdiction to the same extent as due process under the United States 

Constitution, the only question is whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is 

constitutional. See Mattel, 354 F.3d at 863. Under a due process analysis, the Court may 

only exercise jurisdiction in accord with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice,” thus the nonresident defendant is required to have “certain minimum contacts” 

with the forum state in order for jurisdiction to be proper. Id. (quoting International Shoe 

Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 

 Personal jurisdiction may be found where the defendant’s activities subject him to 

either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists where a nonresident 

defendant’s activities within a state are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” Data 

Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). 

In the absence of general jurisdiction, a nonresident defendant may still be sued in the 

forum if specific jurisdiction exists. Id. The Ninth Circuit has established a three part test 

to determine whether there is specific jurisdiction over a defendant: 

 ‘Specific’ jurisdiction exists if (1) the defendant has performed some act or 

consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed 

himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out 

of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of 

jurisdiction is reasonable. 

Mattel, 354 F.3d at 863 (quoting Bancroft & Masters v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 

1086 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

 Plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that jurisdiction is proper. 

Mattel, 354 F.3d at 862 (citing Harris Rutsky, 328 F.3d at 1128). “To make that showing, 

[a plaintiff] need only demonstrate facts that, if true, would support jurisdiction over the 

[d]efendants.” Id. “‘Conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must 

be resolved in [plaintiff’s] favor for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

personal jurisdiction exists.’” AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 

(9th Cir. 1996); see also Doe v. Unocal Corp.,, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 Defendant maintains it is a small limited liability company located in Idaho with its 

principal place of business in Idaho, has no offices, equipment, staff or bank accounts in 

California, is not licensed in California, owns no property, pays no taxes in California and 

has never actively advertised any products or services in California. Defendant argues 

Plaintiff cannot reasonably contend there is general jurisdiction based on Defendant’s 

operation of two websites that are accessible in California. 

 Defendant further argues it operation of websites accessible in California is 

insufficient to support specific jurisdiction. Defendant contends it did not purposefully 

direct its activities at residents of California, as its website is not directly targeted at the 

California market, it is not selling supplements to the California industry, and it does not 

regularly sell the products at issue to California residents. Defendant further maintains 

Plaintiff cannot establish California constitutes a principal consumer base for Defendant, 

that Defendant directs visitors to any California establishments, that Defendant has 

engaged in any print, radio, television, or internet advertising targeting California residents 

or that Defendant has specifically encouraged California residents to visit its website. 

 Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of or relate to any activity 

by Defendant in California. Defendant maintains its websites were designed by a third 

party in Idaho and are maintained by Defendant’s staff and the third party web designer in 

Idaho, therefore, Defendant argues the posting of allegedly misleading statements on the 

website occurred in Idaho. 

 Defendant further argues assertion of jurisdiction by this Court would be 

unreasonable and unfair because defending a lawsuit in California would impose a 

substantial burden on Defendant, a small Idaho company with only one employee located 

in Idaho and all relevant business documents and records in Idaho. Additionally, 

Defendant contends California does not have a significant interest in adjudicating the case 

given that Defendant is an Idaho company headquartered in Idaho with little to no contact 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with California. Defendant further contends Plaintiff can seek relief in another jurisdiction 

with which Defendant has sufficient contacts, and California does not have an interest in 

furthering its own substantive laws because Plaintiff does not allege any violations of 

California law. 

 Plaintiff includes a footnote in his notice of non-opposition in which it asserts 

Defendant’s recitation of the law regarding personal jurisdiction of online business is not 

accurate and maintains a highly commercial website may constitute minimum contacts. 

Plaintiff provides not further argument addressing jurisdiction. 

 The Ninth Circuit uses “a sliding scale analysis that looks to how interactive an 

internet website is for purposes of determining its jurisdiction effect.” Boschetto v. 

Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008). The only information regarding the extent 

of the interactive or commercial nature of Defendant’s websites are conclusory allegations 

in the complaint that Defendant is an online retailer and “developed, licensed, 

manufactured, shipped, distributed, offered for sale, sold and advertised its nutritional 

supplement products in. . .the State of California and this district.” Complaint ¶ 16. This 

is insufficient to support this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants. 

II. Dismissal or Transfer

 Because the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over Defendant, it must determine 

whether to dismiss or transfer the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Pursuant to section 1631 

a court that finds it lacks jurisdiction shall transfer the action to a court in which it could 

have been brought when filed, if it is in the interest of justice. “Normally transfer will be 

in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought 

elsewhere is ‘time-consuming and justice-defeating.’” Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 

262 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962)). The 

Court finds transfer is appropriate. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

17cv00920 JAH - MDD 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction is GRANTED; 

 2. The Clerk of Court shall transfer the action to the United States District Court, 

District of Idaho, Central Division. 

DATED: February 26, 2018 

 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00920-JAH-MDD Document 10 Filed 02/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6