Case Name: LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric HENSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 516 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 12-55574
Parties: LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric HENSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric HENSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-55574.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 23, 2013.
Marc J. Randazza, Managing Senior Counsel, Randazza Legal Group, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Liberty Media Holdings, LLC ("Liberty") appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing its copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.
The district court improperly dismissed Liberty's action because it did not first give Liberty notice and an opportunity to assert facts to support the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Henson. See Tuli v. Republic of Iraq (In re Tuli), 172 F.3d 707, 712-13 (9th Cir.1999) (court erred in failing to give plaintiff notice and an opportunity to present facts supporting personal jurisdiction before declining to enter a default judgment on the ground that such a showing had not been made).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing Liberty's action and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.