None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present
BACKGROUND
LEGAL STANDARD
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Intentional Act
The Court is satisfied that the first element of the Calder effects test is met
because Defendant acted intentionally in selling and promoting the allegedly
infringing apparel and in operating the website through which Defendant sold its
merchandise. See Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668,
673-74 (9th Cir. 2012) (Intentional act has a specialized meaning in the context
of the Calder effects test. We have defined an act as denoting an external
manifestation of the actor's will not including any of its results, even the most
direct, immediate, and intended.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2.
Express Aiming
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL
7
Harm
The Court finds that the third element of the Calder test is also met because
Defendant knew that any harm suffered by Plaintiff would be suffered in
California, as Plaintiffs principal place of business is in California. As the Ninth
Circuit stated in Washington Shoe, it is foreseeable that the loss will be inflicted
both in the forum where the infringement took place . . . and where the [the rights
holder] has its principal place of business. 704 F.3d at 679.
B. Remaining Elements of Specific Jurisdiction
The Court must still consider the remaining two requirements of specific
jurisdiction: whether Plaintiffs claims arise out of Defendants forum-related
activities, and whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant
is reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. As is obvious from the
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL
9
The Court is satisfied that Defendant was adequately served with the
Summons and the Complaint. Plaintiff provided copies of those documents in its
request to waive service under Rule 4(d), and Defendant acknowledged service in
the executed Waiver of the Service of Summons, filed with the Court on May 5,
2015. (Docket No. 15; see also Martinez Decl. 2). Although Defendants
responsive pleading was due by July 29, 2015 under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii),
Defendant has not appeared in this action. (Martinez Decl. 3).
As a matter of discretion, the Court also requires a plaintiff to serve the
Application for Default Judgment on all defendants in danger of default. The
Court does not require service under Rule 4, but only that service be reasonably
likely to provide notice to the defendants. Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service
indicating that on September 21, 2015 it mailed the Application and related papers
to Defendant at Unit 19A, 25 Orbital Business Park, Dwight Road, Tolpits Lane,
Watford, United Kingdom WD18 9DA. (Docket No. 23). Plaintiff also emailed
the papers to Defendant on the same day. (Martinez Decl. 6, Ex. A). Such
actions are sufficiently likely to provide notice to Defendant.
Finally, having reviewed the filings in this action, the Court determines that
the five procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Local
Rule 55-1 are met: (1) the Clerk entered default judgment against Defendant on
August 21, 2015 (Docket No. 21); (2) Defendant failed to respond to the
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL
10
CONCLUSION
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL
14