Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01304/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CALENDARING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-01304 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-Filed on 5/24/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

INVESTCORP RETIREMENT

SPECIALISTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTOHISA OHNO, et al.

Defendants.

No. C-07-01304 RMW

ORDER CALENDARING MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 6]

Plaintiff Investcorp Retirement Specialists, Inc., filed a complaint against Motohisa Ohno for

cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and false advertising on March 6, 2007. 

On April 18, 2007, Ohno, proceeding pro se, filed a document titled "Respond to the Case"

(hereinafter "Response"). The Response is in the form of an answer but challenges this court's

personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. See Response ¶ 1 ("THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: Any

court in California is NOT appropriate venue to me because I, the defendant, am a Japanese resident

and I have no business partner in California. . . . Plaintiff should choose a jurisdiction and venue in

Japan. So, the case should be refused RIGHT NOW.") (emphasis in original). Because the

defendant appears to reside in Japan and is unrepresented by counsel, the court shall treat

defendant's Response as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at this time. 

Case 5:07-cv-01304-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CALENDARING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-01304 RMW

MAG 2

ORDER

1. Defendant's Response shall be treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff may oppose defendant's Response as necessary to address defendant's challenge to

this court's jurisdiction and the propriety of plaintiff's chosen venue. Plaintiff's opposition

shall be filed and served on defendant no later than June 8, 2007.

2. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition. Defendant's reply shall be filed and

served no later than June 29, 2007.

3. Unless the parties stipulate that no hearing is necessary, defendant's motion to dismiss shall

be heard before this court in Courtroom 6 at 280 S. First Street, San Jose, California on

Friday, July 13, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

DATED: 5/21/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01304-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CALENDARING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-01304 RMW

MAG 3

A copy of this order was mailed on 5/24/07 to: 

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Karl Stephen Kronenberger 

Henry M. Burgoyne, III 

Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP 

150 Post Street 

Suite 520 

San Francisco, CA 94108-4707

Defendant (pro se):

Motohisa Ohno 

3-23-30 Higashi-Toyoda 

Hino Tokyo 191-0052 

Japan 

Counsel is responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:07-cv-01304-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3