Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02626/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02626-6/pdf.json

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWERTEQ, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASHRAF MOTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02626-MMC 

ORDER RE: DEFERRED PORTION OF 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

OR TRANSFER; TRANSFERRING 

ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS; VACATING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Before the Court is the deferred portion of defendant Ashraf Moton's ("Moton") 

motion to dismiss or transfer, filed November 23, 2015. By order filed January 7, 2016, 

the Court deferred ruling to the extent the motion sought dismissal or transfer to the 

Northern District of Texas on grounds of improper venue and dismissal for lack of 

personal jurisdiction.1 In so doing, the Court found Moton had submitted sufficient 

evidence that, if uncontroverted, was sufficient to show venue is improper in this District 

and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Additionally, at plaintiff Powerteq, 

LLC's ("Powerteq") request, the Court afforded Powerteq leave to conduct discovery and 

to file supplemental opposition no later than April 15, 2016. To date, Powerteq has not 

filed such supplemental opposition.2

Accordingly, as (1) Powerteq's principal place of business is located in Texas (see

Compl. ¶ 3), (2) Moton resides in the Northern District of Texas (see Moton Aff. ¶ 2; 

 

1

The Court denied the motion without prejudice to the extent the motion sought 

transfer to the Northern District of Texas for the convenience of the parties and 

witnesses.

2

In light of the above, the May 13, 2016, hearing is hereby VACATED.

Case 3:15-cv-02626-MMC Document 39 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

Def.'s Mot. ¶ 2), and (3) the sales challenged by Powerteq were made in Dallas County, 

Texas (see Moton Aff. ¶ 21), which is located in the Northern District of Texas, see 28 

U.S.C. § 124(a)(1), the Court, rather than an order of dismissal, finds it preferable and in 

the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1406(a) (providing where case is filed in district in which venue is not properly laid, 

district court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any 

district . . . in which it could have been brought").

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Northern 

District of Texas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02626-MMC Document 39 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2