NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BELLAGIO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and MIRAGE RESORTS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. BELLAGIO SHOES, INC., a California corporation; et al., Defendants - Appellees. No. 12-16235D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01975-PMPPAL
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Bellagio, LLC and its parent compa ny, Mirage Resorts, Inc. (together, “Bellagio”), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their trademark infringement suit against Bellagio Shoes, Inc., Bertini S hoes, Inc. (together, “Bellagio Shoes”), 

# FILED
APR 30 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.and individual defendants Shlomo Rone n (“Ronen”) and Itzhak Ben Shoshan (“Shoshan”) for lack of personal jurisd iction. Without allowing the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery or hol ding an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint with leave to refile in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, holding that the defendants had not “purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Nevada” to warrant the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s decision de novo. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). 1. The district court should have applied the “purposeful direction,” rather than “purposeful availment,” vari ant of the minimum contacts test. See Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc. , 704 F.3d 668, 672-73 (9th Cir. 2012). Rather than applying this test ourselves, we remand the case for the district court to order jurisdictional discovery and potentially hol d an evidentiary hearing, since many “pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted” and “a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing , 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc. , 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2Among the many relevant, contested issues, the district court should consider the level of control retained by Ronen (if any) over Bellagio Shoes, the existence of any Internet sales by Bellagio Shoes to cu stomers in Nevada, and the credibility of Bellagio’s key affiant, Damian Pryor. To th is end, the district court may wish to hold an evidentiary hearing. 2. Although further jurisdictional discove ry is warranted as to Bellagio Shoes and Ronen, Shoshan should be dismissed as a defendant. His limited actions as the webmaster of <b-shoes.com> and <bertini-shoes.com>, and as the owner of the <bertini-shoes.com> domain name, did not form sufficient contacts with Nevada to authorize the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over him. See Walden v. Fiore , 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122-24 (2014). AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs.

3