DP Creations LLC v. Adolly.com
| Decision Date | 17 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:22-cv-00230-DBB |
| Parties | DP CREATIONS, LLC d/b/a BOUNTIFUL BABY, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ADOLLY.COM, an unknown Chinese business entity; SHENZHEN CITY AIDUOLA HUALIANWANG, LTD. d/b/a ADOLLY US, an unknown Chinese business entity; HUIZHOU CITY OTARD GIFTS, LTD. d/b/a OTARDDOLLS, an unknown Chinese business entity; RUGAO LUOEN TRADING CO., LTD. d/b/a REBORN DOLL GALLERY, an unknown Chinese business entity; and NANJING TIANZENG GIFTS, LTD. d/b/a NPK, an unknown Chinese business entity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Before the court is Plaintiff DP Creations, LLC doing business as Bountiful Baby's (“Bountiful Baby”) Second Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction.[1] Bountiful Baby renews its motion for default judgment against Defendants Shenzhen City Aiduola Hualianwang, Ltd., doing business as Adolly U.S (“AUS”), Huizhou City Otard Gifts doing business as OtardDolls (“OTD”), Rugao Luoen Trading Co Ltd. doing business as Reborn Doll Gallery (“RDG”), and Nanjing Tianzeng Gifts, Ltd. doing business as NPK (“NPK”) (collectively “Defendants”). For the reasons below, the court grants in part and denies in part Bountiful Baby's second motion for default judgment.
Bountiful Baby is a Utah company that sells kits and supplies to create lifelike infant dolls known as “reborn dolls.”[2] To develop the unique copyrighted sculptures, Bountiful Baby uses 3D scanners, professional photography equipment, and 3D printers.[3] It sells individual sculptures and kits.[4] Bountiful Baby does not license the copyrighted sculptures at issue here.[5]
(Image Omitted)
Exemplary reborn doll created by Bountiful Baby[6] Defendants are four foreign businesses that sell reborn dolls.[7] Customers can purchase dolls or kits online and ship them to the United States.[8]
On March 30, 2022, Bountiful Baby filed its Complaint, asserting that Defendants committed twenty-four counts of copyright infringement and seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).[9] The court granted the TRO on April 13, 2022.[10] The day before the TRO expired, the court granted Bountiful Baby a preliminary injunction.[11] After the Clerk of Court entered a default certificate,[12] Bountiful Baby moved for default judgment and a permanent injunction on September 8, 2022.[13] The court granted in part and denied in part the motion on November 2, 2022.[14] The court granted the motion as to Adolly.com (“ADC”) and denied the motion as to the remaining defendants.[15] Bountiful Baby moved for leave to file a second motion for default judgment on December 29, 2022.[16] The court granted it leave to do so.[17] On April 13, 2023, Bountiful Baby filed its Second Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction.[18]
Bountiful Baby seeks default judgment, a permanent injunction, and attorney's fees and costs. The court first discusses default judgment.
To grant default judgment, the court must ensure that jurisdiction exists and that default judgment is appropriate. “A judgment is void if the court that enters it lacks jurisdiction over either the subject matter of the action or the parties to the action.”[19]
“[W]hen entry of a default judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.”[20] The court has subject matter jurisdiction because the claims fall under federal copyright law.[21] “In reviewing its personal jurisdiction, the court does not assert a personal [jurisdiction] defense of the parties; rather, the court exercises its responsibility to determine that it has the power to enter the default judgment.”[22] “The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the court has [personal] jurisdiction.”[23] “[A] movant ‘need only make a prima facie showing [of personal jurisdiction] if the motion [for default judgment] is decided only on the basis of the parties' affidavits and other written materials.'”[24]
Bountiful Baby contends the court can assert personal jurisdiction over Defendants in two ways. It first argues that AUS and RDG consented to jurisdiction in Utah. Next, it argues that Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to assert personal jurisdiction over OTD and NPK. The court discusses each argument in order.
Bountiful Baby argues AUS and RDG consented to jurisdiction when they submitted counter-notifications to Amazon. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) (the “counter-notification provision”), “a service provider who acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material upon notice of an infringement claim is not liable for damages resulting from the infringement.”[25] Should the subscriber who owns the removed material submit a counternotification stating a “good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification[,]” the provider may restore the material.[26] The subscriber must also consent to jurisdiction in the federal judicial district where the subscriber's address is found, or for subscribers outside the United States, where the “service provider may be found[.]”[27]
AUS and RDG sell reborn dolls on Amazon.com.[28] Before litigation, Bountiful Baby submitted notices of copyright infringement to Amazon claiming that certain AUS and RDG products infringed Bountiful Baby's copyrights. AUS and RDG then submitted counternotifications pursuant to statute.[29] Each notice stated: “I am located outside of the United States and I consent to the jurisdiction of any judicial district in which Amazon may be found.”[30] Bountiful Baby's argument goes like this. A defendant may consent to personal jurisdiction even without minimum contacts. AUS and RDG filed counter-notifications that confirmed they are located outside the United States. As such, they consented to jurisdiction where Amazon “may be found.” Amazon may be found in Utah because of the thousands of Amazon employees who work in Utah.[31]
As Bountiful Baby notes, a defendant may consent to personal jurisdiction.[32] AUS and RDG did so when they agreed to jurisdiction where the service provider may be found. In this case, the service provider is Amazon.[33] Consequently, the issue is whether Amazon “may be found” in Utah.
The Copyright Act does not define “may be found.” Yet this phrase appears in the federal venue provision for copyright actions. “Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights . . . may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.”[34] Venue is therefore defined by where the relevant party may be found. In the copyright infringement context, courts have concluded that venue and personal jurisdiction issues “are essentially identical.”[35] “A defendant ‘may be found' in a district in which he could be served with process; that is, in a district which may assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”[36]
“To establish personal jurisdiction . . . plaintiff[ must] . . . show, first, that jurisdiction is authorized under Utah law and, second, that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”[37] Utah's long-arm statute declares that “to ensure maximum protection to citizens of this state, [the statute] should be applied so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”[38] “[U]nder Utah law, the traditional two-step jurisdictional analysis effectively collapses into ‘a single question: [does] the defendant[ ] have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state of Utah to establish personal jurisdiction over [it]?'”[39]
“The Supreme Court has distinguished between two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific.”[40] The court assesses whether Bountiful Baby has made a prima facie showing under either type.
“A state court can exercise general jurisdiction over any claims against defendants who are ‘essentially at home' there, as when an individual is domiciled in the State or a corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business there[.]”[41] “Because general jurisdiction is not related to the events giving rise to the suit, courts impose a more stringent minimum contacts test, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's continuous and systematic general business contacts.”[42] “With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‘paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.'”[43] A foreign corporation can have “affiliations with the State [that] are so ‘continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.”[44]
Amazon is not incorporated in Utah.[45] Its principal place of business is not in Utah.[46] For this reason, Bountiful Baby must show that Amazon's contacts are so “continuous and systematic” that it is “at home” in Utah. It attempts to do so by asserting Amazon has “thousands of operations employees and corporate employees in Utah[.]”[47]
...
To continue reading
Request your trial