IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee for the
RANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,

Plaintiff

v.

LED ZEPPELIN, J AMES PATRICK
PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT,
J OHN PAUL J ONES, SUPER HYPE
PUBLISHING, INC., WARNER MUSIC
GROUP CORP.

Parent of:

WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING
CORPORATION, RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,

Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:



No. 14-cv-3089

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
DEFENDANTS JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY
PLANT AND JOHN PAUL JONES TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER






Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW .......................................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
(a) Summary of Argument ....................................................................................................... 1
(b) Summary of Facts Relevant to this Motion ........................................................................ 2
(1) The Late Randy Wolfe, aka Randy California .......................................................... 2
(2) The Massachusetts Plaintiff and the California Trust of Randy Wolfe ........................ 2
(3) The Individual Defendants Are British Citizens with No Ties to Pennsylvania .......... 3
(4) Stairway to Heaven ....................................................................................................... 4
(5) Plaintiffs Claims in this Action ................................................................................... 5
II. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL J URISDICTION SHOULD BE GRANTED ...................................................... 5
(a) The Standards Applicable to this Motion ........................................................................... 5
(1) The J urisdictional Principles ......................................................................................... 5
(2) Plaintiffs Burden on this Motion ................................................................................. 6
(b) The Individual Defendants Are Not Subject to General J urisdiction in Pennsylvania ....... 6
(c) The Individual Defendants Are Not Subject to Specific J urisdiction in Pennsylvania ...... 7
(1) The Effects Test for Specific J urisdiction ................................................................. 7
(2) Pennsylvania Is Not the Focal Point of the Alleged Harm ........................................... 9
(3) Pennsylvania Is Not the Focal Point of the Alleged Tortious Activity ....................... 10
III.ALTERNATIVELY, THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED
ON VENUE GROUNDS ........................................................................................................ 11
IV.CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 11


Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 16
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
AllChem Performance Products, Inc. v. Aqualine Warehouse, LLC,
878 F. Supp. 2d 779 (S.D. Tex. 2012) ........................................................................................ 8
Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP., 329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2003) ............................... 8
DJamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94
(3d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1048 (2010) .................................................................. 10
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ................................................................ 5, 6, 7, 11
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ...................................... 8
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ........................... 7, 11
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .................................... 6
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) ..................................................................................... 7
HS Real Co., LLC v. Sher, 526 F. Appx 203 (3d Cir. 2013) ....................................................... 11
IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 8
Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)........................................................................ 5
Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) .................................................... 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 6
OConnor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) ..................... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Patchen v. McGuire, 2012 WL 4473233 (E.D. Pa. 2012) .............................................................. 6
Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2002) ......................................................... 6
Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1984) ............................. 6, 7
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ...................................................................................... 10

Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 3 of 16
iii
Statutes
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5322 ................................................................................................................ 5
Rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 .................................................................................................. 5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 .......................................................................................... 9, 10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ................................................................................................ 6



Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 16
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
(a) Summary of Argument
Defendants J ames Patrick Page, Robert Anthony Plant and J ohn Paul J ones
2
respectfully
submit this Memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
and improper venue, or in the alternative to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Western Division.
Plaintiff Michael Skidmore a Massachusetts resident who sues as the purported trustee
of the trust of a Californian, the late Randy Wolfe asserts 43-year-old copyright infringement
claims that Wolfe never bothered to assert in his lifetime. As more fully set forth below, the
individual defendants respectfully submit that the action should be dismissed because they are
not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and venue in this district is not proper, or,
alternatively, that the action should be transferred to the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, California, where the individual defendants consent to jurisdiction and venue.
As to personal jurisdiction, plaintiff relies on conclusory allegations of continuous and
systematic ties to assert general jurisdiction. But, general jurisdiction over an individual is
limited to his or her domicile or, at most, another forum where the individuals extensive
contacts render the individual essentially at home. The individual defendants are British citizens
residing in England, own no property in Pennsylvania and have no contacts with Pennsylvania,
let alone ties sufficient to render them essentially at home here. Under established case law, no
good faith basis exists to argue the Court has general jurisdiction over them. See, below at 5-7.

2
Plaintiff purports to name Led Zeppelin as a defendant. See, e.g., Complaint at caption & at 12-
13, 67-71. Led Zeppelin, however, is the name of a musical group, and not a juridical entity. Page
Decl. at 2, 9; Plant Decl. at 2, 9; J ones Decl. at 2, 9.

Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 5 of 16
2
Further, while plaintiff did not plead specific jurisdiction, his own allegations confirm
that specific jurisdiction also does not exist. Because plaintiff alleges the intentional tort of
copyright infringement, the effects test is applicable and a finding of specific jurisdiction
requires that Pennsylvania be both the focal point of the alleged injury and the focal point of the
alleged tortious activity. Plaintiffs allegations that, e.g., he is a resident of Massachusetts and
the alleged infringement is worldwide, however, establish that Pennsylvania is not the focal point
of the alleged injury or the alleged tort. See, below at 7-10. Accordingly, the action should be
dismissed as to the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Further, since the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the
action is also properly dismissed because venue is not proper. Alternatively, because, inter alia,
plaintiff is not a resident of Pennsylvania, there are no Pennsylvanian witnesses, most if not all
non-party witnesses are located in the Central District of California and the claim did not arise
here, the action is properly transferred to the Central District of California. See, below at 11.
(b) Summary of Facts Relevant to this Motion
(1) The Late Randy Wolfe, aka Randy California
Plaintiff alleges that Randy Wolfe, known professionally as Randy California, was a
guitarist and in 1967 formed the band Spirit. Complaint at 5, 16. Plaintiff also alleges that in
1967 Randy Wolfe wrote the musical composition titled Taurus, a recording of which was
included in his bands 1968 album titled Spirit. Complaint at 5, 18, & at 6, 20.
Randy Wolfe died in 1997. Id. at 12, 62.
(2) The Massachusetts Plaintiff and the California Trust of Randy Wolfe

Plaintiff Michael Skidmore alleges that he is a resident of Quincy, Massachusetts.
Complaint at 12, 61. He sues as the alleged Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust (id. at
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 6 of 16
3
12, 60), established by Bernice C. Pearl, the mother of Randy Craig Wolfe, as conservator of
his estate by court order on February 19, 2002. Id. at 12, 62. Plaintiff alleges that when
Bernice Pearl died, plaintiff, in his capacity as Trustee, continued the administration of the
Trust. Id.
Although plaintiff provides no specifics as to the Trust and does not identify or provide
the document that supposedly appointed him trustee, the Randy Wolfe conservatorship
referenced in the Complaint was established by the California Superior Court for Ventura
County and the February 19, 2002 Order was entered by that Court. See Request for J udicial
Notice at 1-2 & Exhibit 1.
(3) The Individual Defendants Are British Citizens with No Ties to
Pennsylvania

The individual defendants, with the late J ohn Bonham, performed together as the musical
group Led Zeppelin. Complaint at 12-13, 67.
The individual defendants are each citizens of the United Kingdom and reside in London,
England. Page Decl. at 1, 2; Plant Decl. at 1, 2; J ones Decl. at 1, 2. None of them have
ever resided in Pennsylvania; ever been issued a Pennsylvania drivers license; ever owned any
real or personal property located in Pennsylvania; or ever owned any bank accounts, checking
accounts, saving accounts or brokerage accounts in Pennsylvania. Page Decl. at 2-3, 3-6;
Plant Decl. at 2-3, 3-6; J ones Decl. at 2-3, 3-6.
None of them have any employees in Pennsylvania or are parties to any contract with a
resident of Pennsylvania or with any Pennsylvania company. As far as they know, none of them
have ever been a party to any contract with a resident of Pennsylvania or with any Pennsylvania
company for the exploitation, sale or distribution of Led Zeppelin music. Page Decl. at 2, 7-8;
Plant Decl. at 2, 7-8; J ones Decl. at 2, 7-8.
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 7 of 16
4
The individual defendants have not been in Pennsylvania for the purpose of promoting
the exploitation, sale or distribution of Led Zeppelin music since at least 1980. And, they have
not performed as part of the musical group known as Led Zeppelin in the state of Pennsylvania
since 1985, when, without payment, they were one of many performers at a Live Aid charity
concert. None of them have even been in the state of Pennsylvania for any purpose at any time
in at least the last three years. Page Decl. at 3, 9; Plant Decl. at 3, 9; J ones Decl. at 3, 9.
(4) Stairway to Heaven
The song Stairway to Heaven was not written or recorded in Pennsylvania. To the
contrary, plaintiff alleges that Mr. Page and Mr. Plant wrote the musical composition Stairway to
Heaven in Wales in 1970 and the band began recording it in London in 1970 and completed it in
1971. Complaint at 10, 51 & 54. Stairway to Heaven was released in 1971 on the untitled
album commonly called Led Zeppelin IV, and quickly became Led Zeppelins most famous
song, and is universally acknowledged as one of the greatest songs ever written. Id. at 10, 55,
& at 11, 56.
Plaintiff also alleges that Stairway to Heaven, the most famous rock song of all time
(id. at 2, 6), has been and continues to be exploited and the alleged copyright infringements
have occurred not only in this judicial district, but in the United States, and throughout the
world. Id. at 21, 161-62. Any exploitation of Stairway to Heaven by the Warner defendants
none of which are Pennsylvania corporations and none of which have their principal place of
business here is part of those national or international efforts and not directed specifically to
Pennsylvania. Robinson Decl. at 2-3, 3-9.


Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 8 of 16
5
(5) Plaintiffs Claims in this Action
Based on the allegation that Stairway to Heaven infringes a copyright in Taurus, plaintiff
purports to assert claims for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and a
claim labeled Right of Attribution Equitable Relief Falsification of Rock n Roll History,
for the failure to acknowledge the alleged copyright infringement and credit Randy Wolfe.
Complaint at 22-27, 164-91.
II. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD BE GRANTED

(a) The Standards Applicable to this Motion
(1) The Jurisdictional Principles
Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction
over persons. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014), citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(k)(1)(A). In Pennsylvania, state law provides for jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed
under the Constitution of the United States and based on the most minimum contact with [the]
Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States. Marten v. Godwin, 499
F.3d 290, 296 (3d Cir. 2007), quoting 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5322(b).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that nonresident
defendants have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of
the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Marten v.
Godwin, 499 F.3d at 296, quoting Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
These basic due process principles are reflected in the two recognized types of personal
jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant has maintained systematic and
continuous contacts with the forum state . . . . Specific jurisdiction exists when the claim arises
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 9 of 16
6
from or relates to conduct purposely directed at the forum state. Marten, 499 F.3d at 296, citing
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 nn. 8-9 (1984).
(2) Plaintiffs Burden on this Motion
To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing the courts jurisdiction over the moving defendants. Miller Yacht Sales,
Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir. 2004). [T]he plaintiff may not rely on the bare
pleadings alone in order to withstand [dismissal]; the plaintiff must respond to the motion to
dismiss with actual proofssuch as sworn affidavits or other competent evidencenot mere
allegations. Patchen v. McGuire, 2012 WL 4473233 at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2012), quoting Time
Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1984) (at no point may a
plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendants Rule 12(b)(2)
motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction).
Here, plaintiffs own allegations establish, and the accompanying Declarations confirm,
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants.
(b) The Individual Defendants Are Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania

Under general jurisdiction, the contacts between the defendant and the forum need not
be specifically related to the underlying cause of action in order for an exercise of personal
jurisdiction over the defendant to be proper. Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 369
n. 1 (3d Cir. 2002). As the Supreme Court has recently confirmed, however, only a limited set
of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there.
Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760.
For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the
individuals domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 10 of 16
7
fairly regarded as at home . . . . Those affiliations have the virtue of being uniquethat is, each
ordinarily indicates only one placeas well as easily ascertainable. Id., quoting Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853-54 (2011). Simple
jurisdictional rules . . . promote greater predictability. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760, quoting Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).
General jurisdiction does not exist over the individual defendants for the simple reason
that, as plaintiff concedes, they are not domiciled here. Complaint at 14, 84, at 15, 93, & at
16, 101; see, also Page Decl. at 1, 2; Plant Decl. at 1, 2; J ones at 1, 2.
Even if Daimler were read to allow general jurisdiction over an individual if the
individuals affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [the
individual] essentially at home in the forum State (Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761, quoting
Goodyear, 131 S. Ct., at 2851), personal jurisdiction still cannot be constitutionally maintained
in this district. Plaintiffs conclusory allegation on information and belief that each
individual defendant does substantial, continuous, and systematic business in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Complaint at 14, 85, & at 15, 94 & 102), cannot be credited.
Time Share, 735 F.2d at 66 n. 9. Moreover, that allegation is both untrue (see, above at 3-4), and
insufficient to render the individual defendants essentially at home here. Daimler, 131 S. Ct.,
at 2851.
Accordingly, the Court lacks general jurisdiction of the individual defendants.
(c) The Individual Defendants Are Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania

(1) The Effects Test for Specific Jurisdiction
This Circuit recognizes a traditional analysis of specific jurisdiction and [a] slightly
refined version of this test [that] applies to intentional tort claims. OConnor v. Sandy Lane
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 11 of 16
8
Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312, 317 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2007), citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783
(1984) & IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff alleges
[c]opyright infringement[, which] is an intentional tort. Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie &
Co., LLP., 329 F.3d 923, 931 (7th Cir. 2003); see, also Complaint at 23, 175 (Defendants us
[sic] of Taurus in Stairway to Heaven was done with knowledge of the infringement and was
otherwise willful). Accordingly, the effects test applies. OConnor, 496 F.3d at 317 n. 2;
AllChem Performance Products, Inc. v. Aqualine Warehouse, LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 779, 792-93
(S.D. Tex. 2012) (since copyright infringement is an intentional tort, Calder effects test applies;
personal jurisdiction not established and action transferred).
3

Under the effects test, a plaintiff demonstrate[s] personal jurisdiction if he or she
shows:
(1) The defendant committed an intentional tort;
(2) The plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm in the forum such that the forum can be
said to be the focal point of the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of that tort;
(3) The defendant expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum such that the
forum can be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity.
Marten, 499 F.3d at 297, citing IMO Indus., 155 F.3d at 26566. All three elements must be
established. Marten, 499 F.3d at 297. While plaintiff alleges an intentional tort, which of course
is disputed, his own allegations confirm that he cannot establish the remaining two requirements
for specific jurisdiction.

3
Plaintiff also adds a claim for failure to credit Wolfe, but that claim is not recognized under the
law (see, e.g., Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003)) and, even if it
were, it is alleged as an intentional, non-contractual claim. Complaint at 26, 188 (Defendants have
knowingly been exploiting Stairway to Heaven without crediting Randy California as a writer for the
last forty-two years).

Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 12 of 16
9
(2) Pennsylvania Is Not the Focal Point of the Alleged Harm
As to the second part of the effects test, plaintiff cannot establish that [he] felt the
brunt of the harm in [Pennsylvania] such that [Pennsylvania] can be said to be the focal point of
the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of that tort. Marten, 499 F.3d at 297.
4

First, plaintiff is not even a resident of Pennsylvania. Complaint at 12, 61 (Skidmore
is a resident of Quincy, Massachusetts). If the claimed Trust is instead considered, plaintiff
alleges the Trust was established by Order of the Court in the Randy Wolfe conservatorship (id.
at 12, 62), and that was a California proceeding and Order. See Request for J udicial Notice at
1-2 & Exhibit 1. Since plaintiff and the Trust are not residents of Pennsylvania, they are not
even here to feel the alleged harm. For that reason alone, plaintiff cannot satisfy the second
part of the effects test.
Furthermore, plaintiff cannot establish that Pennsylvania is the focal point of the harm
[allegedly] suffered . . . . Plaintiff alleges that Stairway to Heaven has been exploited and the
alleged infringements have occurred not only in this judicial district, but in the United States,
and throughout the world. Complaint at 21, 161-62. Plaintiff has not alleged, and could not
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allege, that Pennsylvania is the focal point
of the alleged nationwide and worldwide exploitation of what plaintiff alleges is the most
famous rock song of all time . . . . Id. at 2, 6.
Because Pennsylvania is not the focal point of the alleged harm, plaintiff cannot
satisfy the second part of the effects test and this Court lacks specific jurisdiction of the
individual defendants.

4
While the usual practice is to assess specific jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis, because
plaintiffs four claims are factually overlapping and all based on the same alleged copying of Taurus,
the Court need not analyze them separately. OConnor, 496 F.3d at 318.

Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 13 of 16
10
(3) Pennsylvania Is Not the Focal Point of the Alleged Tortious Activity

Plaintiff also cannot establish the third part of the effects test, that [t]he defendant
expressly aimed his tortious conduct at [Pennsylvania] such that [Pennsylvania] can be said to be
the focal point of the tortious activity. Marten, 499 F.3d at 297. [T]he plaintiff has to
demonstrate the defendant knew that the plaintiff would suffer the brunt of the harm caused by
the tortious conduct in the forum, and point to specific activity indicating that the defendant
expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum. Id. at 287-98, quoting IMO Indus., 155 F.3d
at 266; Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1125 (2014) (Calder made clear that mere injury to a
forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum).
Plaintiff alleges that Stairway to Heaven was written in Wales and recorded in London,
England. Complaint at 10, 51 & 54. Plaintiff has not alleged, and could not consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allege, that in writing and recording what plaintiff alleges is
universally acknowledged as one of the greatest songs ever written (id. at 11, 56), these
British citizens expressly aimed Stairway to Heaven at Pennsylvania.
Moreover, plaintiff specifically alleges that the alleged infringement has occurred not
only in this judicial district, but across the nation and throughout world. Complaint at 21, 162.
Plaintiffs own allegations establish as is obvious that Pennsylvania is not the focal point of
the alleged tortious activity.
Accordingly, plaintiff also cannot satisfy the third part of the effects test and, for that
additional reason, this Court lacks specific jurisdiction of the individual defendants.
5


5
While the traditional analysis for specific jurisdiction does not apply, plaintiff also could not
meet the three requirements of that test. Marten, 499 F.3d at 296. First, plaintiff cannot show the
necessary . . . deliberate targeting of the forum. OConnor, 496 F.3d at 317; DJamoos ex rel. Estate of
Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (Any connection . . . to Pennsylvania
merely was a derivative benefit of [the] successful attempt to exploit the United States as a national
market), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1048 (2010). Second, plaintiff also cannot show that his claims arise
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 14 of 16
11
III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR
TRANSFERRED ON VENUE GROUNDS

As the Warner defendants establish, venue in this copyright action is co-extensive with
personal jurisdiction and, since personal jurisdiction is lacking, venue is improper. See, Warner
defendants Memo. at 7. For that additional reason, this action is properly dismissed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).
Alternatively, this action was filed by a non-resident, there are no Pennsylvanian
witnesses, the non-party witnesses are largely in the Central District of California and the claims
did not arise in this district. The individual defendants have consented to both jurisdiction and
venue in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for purposes of this
action, should this Court direct its transfer there. For those and other reasons this action is
properly transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division. See, Warner
defendants Memo. at 8-12; Robinson Decl. at 2-3, 3-9; Anderson Decl. at 3-7, 7-20.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs own allegations and the Declarations filed herewith confirm that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants. They are not residents of
Pennsylvania and do not have the far-ranging and deep ties with Pennsylvania necessary to
establish that they are essentially at home here and subject to general jurisdiction. Daimler,
134 S. Ct. at 761, quoting Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. And, plaintiffs own allegations
establish that Pennsylvania where plaintiff does not reside is not the focal point of the

from contacts with Pennsylvania. OConnor, 496 F.3d at 319, 323 (specific jurisdiction requires a closer
and more direct causal connection than that provided by the but-for test). Plaintiff, of course, cannot
seriously contend that the alleged claims would not have arisen but for contacts with Pennsylvania. HS
Real Co., LLC v. Sher, 526 F. Appx 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2013) (plaintiffs inability to even plead a but-
for causative link defeats specific jurisdiction under the traditional test). Because plaintiff could not
satisfy the first two requirements of the traditional analysis, he would not even get to the third and, even
if he did, exercising jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.
Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 15 of 16
12
alleged harm and not the focal point of the alleged tortious activity. Marten, 499 F.3d at 297.
As a result, the Court also lacks specific jurisdiction over the individual defendants and, in
addition, venue is improper.
Accordingly, the action is properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and
improper venue or, alternatively, the action should be transferred to the Central District of
California, Western Division, where all defendants consent to jurisdiction and venue of this
action.
Respectfully submitted,

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

/s/ Michael Eidel
Michael Eidel, Esquire
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 918-3568
(215) 345-7507 (facsimile)

Local Counsel for Defendants

Dated: September 17, 2014
PHILIPS NIZER LLP

/s/ Helene Freeman
Helene Freeman, Esquire
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103-0084
(212) 977-9700
(212) 262-5152 (facsimile)

Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Case 2:14-cv-03089-JS Document 28-2 Filed 09/17/14 Page 16 of 16