Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02401/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02401-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 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

- 1 - 06cv2401

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEDAVAILABILITY.COM, a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2401-LAB (LSP)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK

OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

vs.

A BED AVAILABLE, LLC, a Washington

limited liability corporation, JOSEPH

PAFFILE, 

Defendants.

On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants A Bed Available,

LLC, (“A Bed Available”) and a Defendant identified as “Jim Paffile,” and a summons was

issued as to both. On November 8, 2006, before any responsive pleading was filed, Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint naming A Bed Available and Joseph Paffile, a managing

member of A Bed Available, as Defendants. Summonses were issued as to both, and were

returned and filed November 27, 2006. That same day, Defendants filed a motion pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (4), and (6) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or for

defects in process, or for failure to state a claim (the “Motion”).

According to the pleadings, Bedavailability.com is a California corporation with its

principal place of business in this district, while A Bed Available is a limited liability company

organized under the laws of the state of Washington, where it has its principal place of

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 7
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

- 2 - 06cv2401

business. Both Bedavailability.com and A Bed Available allegedly operate websites that

provide information on the availability of accommodations in retirement care facilities, skilled

nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities (collectively, “Care Facilities”) in the United

States. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable pursuant to the Lanham Act because the

website (including the name and logos) used by A Bed Available is confusingly similar to its

own, and because A Bed Available is allegedly intentionally confusing consumers and

drawing away Bedavailability.com’s customers. Plaintiff alleges both Defendants engaged

in the Lanham Act violations. Plaintiff has also brought California state claims, which it

contends arise from the same set of operative facts.

I. Personal Jurisdiction

Defendants characterize the services offered by A Bed Available as listing services

for Care Facilities, and contend the services are to be performed entirely within the state of

Washington. They provide documentation that these agreements are expressly subject to

venue and jurisdiction in Washington and are to be construed under Washington law.

(Paffile Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ¶ 12.) Defendants add, however, that A Bed

Available “is engaged in the business of helping families and advocates locate a care facility

for a loved one or client.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) Defendants contend that Defendant Paffile has had

no contacts with the state of California at all for the past fifteen years, and that A Bed

Available has only limited contacts with California. 

Defendant Paffile’s declaration states that each Care Facility pays a fee of $99 to be

listed on its website, and that the total fees paid by Care Facilities in California amounts to

less than $2000. (Paffile Decl., ¶¶ 12, 13.)

Defendant Paffile declares specifically that its website “is not directed at California

residents.(Paffile Decl., ¶ 11.) A Bed Available “does not direct any of its advertising

specifically toward California residents, nor does it advertise in any publications that are

directed primarily toward California residents.” (Id., ¶ 21.)

Defendant Paffile has declared that “all of the activities complained of by the Plaintiff

were undertaken by Defendant A Bed Available LLC and/or me in my capacity as a

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 7
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

- 3 - 06cv2401

managing member, not as an individual.” (Paffile Decl., ¶ 23.) His declaration further makes

special mention of the precautions he and A Bed Available took to limit fora for litigation

against them to Washington courts. (Id., ¶ 25.)

Defendants contend that they were not served in the state of California, are not

domiciled within the state, have not consented to suit in the state, and lack minimum

contacts with the state. Plaintiff does not contest the first three denials, but argues

Defendants do have the required minimum contacts with the state to make them amenable

to suit in California.

The parties have cited no federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, so the Court

applies California law. Panavision Int’l., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998)

(citing Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993)). In this

case, California’s long-arm statute permits courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the

extent permitted by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 410.10. 

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject

to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts,

ties, or relations.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471–72 (1985) (citing Int’l

Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). Individuals

must have “fair warning” that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of the

forum state. Id. at 472 (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 218 (1977)). “[The] ‘fair

warning’ requirement is satisfied if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at

residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or

relate to’ those activities. . . .” Id. (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770,

774 (1984); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)).

In the internet context, maintenance of a website or internet advertisement alone is

not enough to subject a party to personal jurisdiction in the forum; rather, there must be

“something more” to “indicate that the defendant purposefully (albeit electronically) directed

his activity in a substantial way to the forum state.” Panavision Int’l, 141 F.3d at 1321

(quoting Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 418 (9th Cir.1997)). Personal

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 7
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

- 4 - 06cv2401

jurisdiction may be based on a the effects of intentional actions expressly aimed at the forum

stat and causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered — and which the defendant knows is

likely to be suffered — in the forum state. Id. at 1321 (citing Core-Vent, 11 F.3d at 1486.)

The Ninth Circuit has spoken clearly to this issue, holding that, even where a defendant

never enters the plaintiff’s home state but merely posts material accessible on the internet

giving rise to a Lanham Act claim, a district court in the plaintiff’s home state has personal

jurisdiction over the defendant because infringement would create an injury which would be

felt mainly in that state. Id. at 1322.

Plaintiff has also pointed out that its claims arise out of Defendants’ activities

specifically aimed at California residents. As noted, Defendants admit they entered into

agreements with Care Facilities in California. Given the nature of the services advertised,

it is reasonable to infer A Bed Available’s website is aimed at California residents who are

interested in locating available beds in California Care Facilities. Finally, Plaintiff has

submitted evidence showing Defendants directly targeted California residents. Plaintiff has

submitted evidence showing that A Bed Available direct mailed individuals in California

advertising the website. (Opp’n, Exs. A (electronic mail messages from California residents

to Bedavailability.com referencing direct mail), B (example of direct mailed post card to

California resident).) Plaintiff has also submitted evidence showing that A Bed Available’s

website directed users to at least twelve Care Facilities in various cities in California known

to have available beds (including Care Facilities in this district), and large numbers of other

Care Facilities without known beds available. (Id., Exs. D–F.)

Defendants’ contentionsnotwithstanding, it appears Defendants intentionally solicited

business from substantial numbers of customers in California. This is sufficient to show, as

a threshold matter, that Defendants purposefully directed their activities to California

residents, including residents of this district.

Defendant Paffile’s contention that “[a]ll of the activities complained of by the Plaintiff

were undertaken by A Bed Available LLC and/or Mr. Paffile in his capacity as a managing

member, and not as an individual,” is of no help to him. Plaintiff has alleged that both

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 - 06cv2401

Defendants committed the infringing acts. A corporate officer or director is “personally liable

for all torts which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that

he acted as an agent of the corporation and not on his own behalf.” Committee for Idaho's

High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac

Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 (9th Cir. 1986)) (holding that officers could

be personally sued for claims in Lanham Act violations).

Defendants’ citation to their agreements’ forum selection clauses in agreements is

unavailing, because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of these agreements, and Plaintiff in

any event is not a party to them.

Defendants have also attached a “Terms of use” page from the A Bed Available

website requiring that users of the site consent to the arbitration of any disputes in Seattle,

Washington, and requiring users to consent to their relationship with A Bed Available to be

governed by Washington law. (Paffile Dec., Ex. C.) This has no bearing on the question

before the Court, however, as there is no indication Plaintiff has consented to be bound by

this provision, and Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of its use of the website.

Because it appears Defendants purposely directed their allegedly infringing activities

into California; because Defendants could reasonably anticipate that tortious infringement

of Plaintiff’s rights would give rise to a cause of action in Plaintiff’s home forum; and because

infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark rights would naturally affect Plaintiff most in its home

state, this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is reasonable.

II. Defective Service of Process

Defendants’ sole contention in this respect is that Defendant Joseph Paffile was

served as Jim Paffile. As noted, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and served Joseph

Paffile anew. The Amended Complaint lists “Joseph Paffile” as a Defendant. The summons

is addressed to “Jim Paffile;” the return of service lists “Jim Paffile” as the party, but notes

that “Joseph Paffile” is his correct name. Mr. Paffile obviously has received actual notice

and knows Plaintiff is attempting to sue him for his actions on behalf of A Bed Available. 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 - 06cv2401

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that an amendment of a pleading

relates back to the date of the original pleading when 

the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom

a claim is within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons

and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received

such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced

in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known

that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action

would have been brought against the party.

The Court holds that both conditions (A) and (B) have been met, and that Plaintiff has

therefore properly added Defendant Joseph Paffile by amendment. Service on Defendant

Paffile, though slightly irregular, is adequate and need not be repeated. See Campbell v.

Fernando-Sholes, 2006 WL 2917353, slip op. at *2 (D.Ariz. 2006) (refusing to quash

summons that used slightly incorrect name but that was served on the correct defendant).

See also United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals 197, et al. v. Alpha Beta Co.,

736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Rule 4 is a flexible rule which is liberally construed to

uphold service as long as defendant receives sufficient notice of the complaint.”).

III. Failure to State a Claim

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to define what services that infringe

Plaintiff’s rights A Bed Available has offered in interstate commerce, Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim. Defendants contend Plaintiff has failed to state which services were offered

in interstate commerce, and whether A Bed Available or Joseph Paffile allegedly caused the

infringement. This argument is based largely on what appears to be a clerical error in the

Amended Complaint, at ¶ 27, in which “Infringing Services” is used as a defined term when

it has not been previously defined. A drafter’s note to herself to correct this error was

apparently left in the Amended Complaint. In view of the previous two paragraphs, which

identify the services offered by Plaintiff and A Bed Available as being the same and as being

offered on the A Bed Available website, any confusion caused by this clerical error is minor

at most. Under notice pleading rules, a simple and obvious clerical error is not an

appropriate basis for dismissal. See Horne v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc., 489

F. Supp. 465, 468 n.1 (D.Mass. 1980). 

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 06cv2401

The Amended Complaint alleges that both Defendants offered the infringing services

for sale in interstate commerce. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 26.) Defendants have

not shown that this fails to state a claim.

IV. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED. In view of the correction of Mr.

Paffile’s name in the Amended Complaint, the Clerk of this Court shall correct the caption

in this action to reflect the fact that Mr. Paffile’s first name is Joseph.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02401-LAB-LSP Document 14 Filed 02/13/07 Page 7 of 7