Opinion ID: 779795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Preliminary Conference

Text: 8 The proceedings below were complicated by an unfortunate but ultimately innocuous confusion of terminology between subject matter jurisdiction and  in rem jurisdiction. The confusion was initiated by counsel for captainbarbie.com at the preliminary conference held on March 30, 2001, when counsel raised a concern ... about the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and then proceeded to argue that Mattel's broad interpretation of § 1125(d) (the in rem jurisdiction provision) was an incorrect invocation of the subject matter jurisdiction [ sic ] of the court. Both parties as well as the court continued to refer to subject matter jurisdiction instead of  in rem jurisdiction throughout the conference. 9 The record shows that, muddled as their terminology was, the parties and the court essentially understood the substance of the two concepts. Although the district judge announced that it thought to satisfy itself as to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the judge plainly meant that Mattel should address the specific issues regarding in rem jurisdiction that captainbarbie.com had raised. Complying with the judge's request with studied literalness while ignoring her manifest intention, Mattel submitted a brief demonstrating that the ACPA conferred federal-question subject matter jurisdiction on the court. After receiving captainbarbie.com's response brief, which substantively addressed the issue of in rem jurisdiction, the district court dismissed the case for lack of  in rem jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club. Com, No. 00 Civ. 8705, 2001 WL 436207, at  (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2001). Mattel neither sought to file a further brief in reply to captainbarbie.com's response brief nor moved for reconsideration or reargument on the issue of in rem jurisdiction. In a post-opinion brief responding to specific questions posed by the court, Mattel did not challenge the court's disposition of the jurisdictional question and made no mention of being surprised that in rem jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction was the ground of dismissal.