Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01772/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01772-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mitek Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Seven Elephants Distributing Corp., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CV-06-1772-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mitek Corporation’s Motion for Expedited

Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Issued. (Dkt. 21.) 

On July 17, 2006, Mitek filed this action against defendants Seven Elephants

Distributing Corp. (“SEDC”), Ashkan Tabibnia, and Sharam Tabibnia (together, the

“Tabibnias,” and collectively with SEDC, “Defendants”). On August 2, 2006, Mitek

filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and an Order to Show Cause why

Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue against Defendants. (Dkt. 9.)

On August 14, 2006, the Tabibnias filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction (Dkt. 11), and SEDC filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the

alternative, to Transfer or Stay Action. (Dkt. 12.) According to SEDC, a complaint for

declaratory relief involving the same primary parties and the same issues raised by the

instant action was filed by SEDC in the Central District of California on June 17, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01772-MLR Document 22 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

-2-

(Dkt. 12 at 1-2.) As a result, SEDC requested this Court to dismiss Mitek’s complaint

under the first-to-file doctrine, to transfer this case to the Central District of California,

or, in the alternative, to stay this action pending the decision of the California Court. 

(Dkt. 12.)

Mitek’s responses to both Motions to Dismiss were originally due on August 28,

2006. On August 28, 2006, the Court approved a stipulation of the parties permitting

Mitek to file its responses on September 13, 2006. (Dkt. 19.) Three days later, Mitek

filed its reply to Defendants’ response to Mitek’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

and an Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue as well as

the instant Motion for an Expedited Order to Show Cause. (Dkts. 20-21.) According to

Mitek, it needs “immediate relief,” the Application is fully briefed, and “all parties are

ready for a hearing.” (Dkt. 21.)

Although the Application is fully briefed, the Court takes issue with Mitek’s

assertion that “all parties are ready for a hearing.” For several reasons, the Court will not

issue an expedited Order to Show Cause. First, the Tabibnias have asserted that this

Court lacks personal jurisdiction against them. Because this issue has not yet been

resolved, and, indeed, the resolution of this issue has been postponed, the Court will not

issue an expedited Order to Show Cause. See Paccar Int’l, Inc. v. Commercial Bank of

Kuwait, S.A.K., 757 F.2d 1058, 1060 (9th Cir. 1985) (vacating preliminary injunction

issued against defendant because district court lacked personal jurisdiction over

defendant). Similarly, SEDC has asserted that, for reasons of comity and judicial

efficiency, this action should be dismissed because the same issues are pending in the

Central District of California lawsuit. Because the resolution of this issue has also been

postponed, the Court will not issue an expedited Order to Show Cause. Finally, in less

than three court days, Judge Real will hold a hearing on Mitek’s Motion to Dismiss the

California lawsuit filed by SEDC. See Seven Elephants Dist’g Corp. v. Mitek Corp.,

Case 2:06-cv-01772-MLR Document 22 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

-3-

CV-06-3911-R-VBK, dkt. 16. For this additional reason, the Court will not issue an

expedited Order to Show Cause.

In the Court’s opinion, both Motions to Dismiss, as well as the Motion to Dismiss

pending in the Central District of California, should be resolved before any decision is

made on Mitek’s request for an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction

Should Not Issue. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff Mitek Corporation’s Motion

for Expedited Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Issued. 

(Dkt. 21.) 

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01772-MLR Document 22 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3