1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TIARE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

 Plaintiff,

v.

§

§

§

§

§

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

 

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-253-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

 

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-250-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

H.E. BUTT GROCERY COMPANY §

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-251-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

SUBWAY SANDWICH SHOPS, LLC, et al §

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-254-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

TACO BELL CORP. §

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-255-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

ULTA BEAUTY, INC. §

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-256-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

WALMART, INC.

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-257-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

PLAINTIFF TIARE TECHNOLOGY. INC’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SUBWAY 

SANDWICH SHOPS LLC, SUBWAY SUBS LLC, FRANCHISE WORLD 

HEADQUARTERS, LLC, SUBWAY HOLDINGS, LLC, SUBWAY WORLDWIDE, LLC, 

AND DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES LLC’S AND DEFENDANT TACO BELL CORP.’S

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

In an abundance of caution,1 Plaintiff Tiare Technology Inc. (“Tiare”) files this response 

1 Tiare filed an Unopposed Motion on August 18, 2023 (Dkt. 15) seeking an extension of time to 

file responses to the Motions to Dismiss filed by Subway and Taco Bell. As of this filing, Tiare 

Case 2:23-cv-00253-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 08/22/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 172
2

in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.2 As Tiare explained in its Unopposed Motion 

for Extension of Time to File a Response to each Motion (Dkt. 15), Tiare expects the parties to 

agree to a schedule for venue discovery and briefing on the Motions to Dismiss, including a 

deadline to file a response brief after completion of venue discovery. It is Tiare’s understanding 

that Defendants do not oppose the general framework of obtaining venue discovery followed by 

briefing on Defendants’ Motions. 

Defendants’ Motions raise fact-intensive questions about their presence in this District that 

warrant venue discovery prior to the Court resolving the parties’ venue dispute. Defendants assert 

that each Defendant does not have a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. 

1400(b). This response shows three (non-exhaustive) examples in which Defendants do maintain 

regular and established places of business in this District that Tiare expects discovery will further 

shed light on.

First, the declarants for both Subway and Taco Bell admit that (1) they have employees in 

this District3; and (2) they have rented and leased property, including in this District.4 These facts 

weigh in favor of finding that venue is proper in this case, but, in any event, details relating to

these facts are likely to bear on venue analysis. 

Second, Defendants base their Motions on the alleged separation between them and the 

has not received a ruling from the Court. In the event the Court grants the Unopposed Motion, 

Tiare reserves the right to request to withdraw this response in view of the Court’s Order.

2 Those Motions are at Tiare Technology, Inc. v. Subway Sandwich Shops LLC, No. 2:23-CV-254 

(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 25) (“Subway Motion”) and Tiare Technology, Inc. v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 2:23-

CV-255 (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 9) (“Taco Bell Motion”).

3 Exhibit 1 to Subway Motion (Dkt. 25-1) at ¶ 15; Exhibit 1 to Taco Bell Motion (Dkt. 9-1) at ¶ 8.

4 Exhibit 1 to Subway Motion (Dkt. 25-1) at ¶ 14; Exhibit 1 to Taco Bell Motion (Dkt. 9-1) at ¶ 7.

Case 2:23-cv-00253-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 08/22/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 173
3

Taco Bell and Subway restaurants located in this District. But Defendants do not attach the 

manuals, franchise disclosure documents, and other documentation (e.g., reports about site 

inspections) that govern the relationship between Defendants and the restaurants, including as it 

relates to the mobile-ordering functionality at-issue in this case. Tiare expects that these types of 

documents, in addition to the franchise agreements, will show that Defendants exercise significant, 

interim control over the restaurants in this District, including as it relates to mobile ordering (e.g., 

controlling locations, advertising, signage, and the like and requiring participation and support for

mobile-ordering, mandating the type of computer systems utilized, and the like). That degree 

control, Tiare expects, will further show that the Taco Bell and Subway restaurants in this District 

as regular and established places of business of Defendants.

As a final example category, Tiare expects discovery to help assess the credibility of 

Defendants’ declarations. For example, Taco Bell’s declarant states that “Taco Bell does not own 

or operate any Taco Bell branded restaurants within the Eastern District of Texas.”5 But public

information shows that Taco Bell currently owns such restaurants in this District, reflected in a 

basic search of Collin County property records.6

5 Exhibit 1 to Taco Bell Motion (Dkt. 9-1) at ¶ 4.

6 https://www.collincad.org/propertysearch (search for “Taco Bell Corp.” and “Taco Bell of 

America” as property owner).

Case 2:23-cv-00253-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 08/22/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 174
4

Tiare believes the facts are sufficient to support venue. Tiare, however, also requests that 

the Court provide the opportunity to take venue discovery, which Tiare expects to be submitted as 

an agreed request. This Court liberally grants jurisdictional discovery:

“[J]urisdictional discovery should only be denied where it is 

impossible that the discovery ‘could . . . add[] any significant facts’ 

that might bear on the jurisdictional determination.” “Put another 

way, jurisdictional discovery should typically be granted unless ‘no 

amount of information . . . would strengthen’ the movant’s 

jurisdictional claims.” The Court concludes that Ultravision may be 

able to add significant facts that might bear on the jurisdictional 

determination if further venue discovery were permitted. 

Consequently, the Court should deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss 

on the issue of improper venue and permit discovery into this issue.

Ultravision Techs., LLC v. GoVision, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00100-JRG-RSP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

32618, at *11 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (quoting Blitzsafe Texas LLC v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., 2:17-

cv-00430-JRG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86350, at *3 (E.D. Tex. 2019)); see also Secure Axcess, 

LLC v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, No. 6:13-CV-788, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108789, at *7-8 (E.D. 

Tex. 2014) (granting request for discovery raised in opposition to Motion to Dismiss). Tiare 

requests that the Court grant it here.

For the foregoing reasons, Tiare respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss.

Case 2:23-cv-00253-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 08/22/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 175
5

Dated: August 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christian J. Hurt

William E. Davis, III

Texas State Bar No. 24047416

bdavis@davisfirm.com 

Christian Hurt 

Texas State Bar No. 24059987

churt@davisfirm.com 

THE DAVIS FIRM PC

213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230

Longview, Texas 75601

Telephone: (903) 230-9090

Facsimile: (903) 230-9661

Counsel for Plaintiff Tiare Technology, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document and all attachments thereto are being 

filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document is being 

served this August 22, 2023 on all counsel of record, each of whom is deemed to have consented 

to electronic service. L.R. CV-5(a)(3)(A).

/s/ Christian J. Hurt

 Christian J. Hurt

Case 2:23-cv-00253-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 08/22/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 176