Getty Images (U.S.), Inc. v. Clinics
| Decision Date | 09 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C13-0626JLR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | GETTY IMAGES (US), INC., Plaintiff, v. VIRTUAL CLINICS, et al., Defendants. |
Before the court is Defendants Kendra and Ryan Camp's ("the Camps") motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (Mot. (Dkt. # 15).) The Camps argue that they do not have sufficient contacts with the state of Washington to be sued here given that their business, which designs websites, operates out of Florida and has only two Washington customers. Plaintiff Getty Images (US), Inc. ("Getty") argues that the Camps' contacts with Washington are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction The court agrees with Getty, finding that all elements of the test for personal jurisdictionare met and that venue is proper in the Western District of Washington. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
This case is about pictures of cats and dogs. Getty controls the intellectual property rights to numerous pictures of cats and dogs. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 22-23.) Getty is a digital content provider that licenses imagery, video, and music to business customers for use in websites, books, newspapers, magazines, television, and other mediums. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Getty owns some of the images it licenses and also acts as a distributor for numerous third-party content suppliers. (Id. ¶ 14.)
The Camps are a Florida couple who run a website design company from their home. (Camp Decl. (Dkt. # 16) ¶ 2.) They design websites for veterinarians and veterinary clinics, doing business under the name of Vet Web Designers.1 (Id.) They use pictures of cats and dogs in the websites they design.
Getty claims that the Camps used pictures of cats and dogs that are exclusively licensed to Getty in designing a number of different websites nationwide. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 25, 33.) For example, Getty claims that the Camps used Getty-owned or controlled images such as "200374104-001 Dog sleeping in bed between two people (focus on feet)," "200355950-001 Dog with suitcase, wearing Hawaiian shirt," and"BD8365-001 Chinchilla cat wearing diamond tiara, resting on cushion." (Id.) Getty's allegation is that the Camps used these images in an infringing manner on the websites they designed for their customers across the nation—two of which were websites for Washington veterinarians. (Compl. ¶ 33.) Getty alleges a single cause of action against the Camps—copyright infringement. (Id. ¶¶ 31-38.)
In this motion, the parties dispute whether the Camps—who have only two customers in Washington—have sufficient contacts with Washington that they may be sued here. The Camps claim they do not, testifying that they have never met with their two Washington customers in Washington, that these customers account for only 4% of their annual business, that they own no property in Washington, that they have no employees, no office, no mailing address, and no presence in Washington, do not pay taxes in Washington, are not licensed or regulated in Washington, and have no accounts or investments in Washington. (Camp Decl. ¶¶ 8-16.) In addition, they argue that it would not be fair for them to be hauled into court in Washington because they are retired and disabled, they live in Florida, they have "minimum financial resources," and they "have never personally tried to attract customers from Washington state or anticipated that [they] would have to face a lawsuit in Washington state . . . ." (Id. ¶¶ 3, 17-18.)
Getty, on the other hand, argues that the Camps have "numerous and repeated contacts with and activities directed toward [Washington] state." (Resp (Dkt. # 22) at 4.) Getty presents evidence that the Camps have had "numerous and repeated" contacts with their two Washington customers and have received "substantial and ongoing payments from them." (Id. at 5.) Getty also presents evidence that the Camps appeared at aseminar in Bellevue, Washington in 2006, and that while there they solicited one of their two Washington customers. (Id.) Last, Getty alleges that the Camps have engaged in a campaign against them and their attorneys in connection with this lawsuit—filing bar complaints against their attorneys, contacting members of Congress, encouraging others to do the same, and creating the website "www.stopgettyimages.com." (Id. at 6-8.)
The primary issue on this motion is whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the Camps. The Camps also argue that venue is improper.
As Plaintiff, Getty bears the burden of establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Zigler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the court is resolving the motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing,2 Getty "need make only a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion." Wash. Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc., 704 F.3d 668, 671-72 (9th Cir. 2012); Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). That is, Getty "need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over [the Camps]." Id.; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) ().
In addition to Getty's complaint, the parties have submitted affidavits both in support of and in opposition to the motion. (See, e.g., Camp Decl.; Bond Decl. (Dkt. # 23).) In determining whether Getty has met its burden of making a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts, the court considers uncontroverted allegations in Getty's complaint as true and resolves conflicts between facts contained in the parties' affidavits in Getty's favor. See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001); AT & T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because there is no federal statute governing personal jurisdiction in this case, Washington's long-arm statute applies. Wash. Shoe, 704 F.3d at 672. That statute extends jurisdiction over a defendant to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. (citing RCW 4.28.185; Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 783 P.2d 78, 82 (Wash. 1989)). Because Washington's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due process, the state-law jurisdictional analysis is the same as the federal due process analysis. AT & T Co. v. Compagnie Briaelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). "The relevant question, therefore, is whether the requirements of due process are satisfied by the exercise of personal jurisdiction over [the Camps] in Washington." Id. Federal due process requires that a defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state that the exercise of personal jurisdiction will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
There are two different kinds of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Getty does not attempt to argue that the court has general personal jurisdiction over the Camps.(See Resp. at 13 n.7.) "For general jurisdiction to exist, a defendant must engage in 'continuous and systematic general business contacts,' . . . that 'approximate physical presence' in the forum state." Marvix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984)); Bancroft & Masters, Inc., 223 F.3d at 1086). "The standard for general jurisdiction ' is an exacting standard, as it should be, because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world.'" Id. at 1224 (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004)). Getty acknowledges that the Camps' contacts with Washington do not support general personal jurisdiction. (Resp. at 13 n.7.)
Instead, Getty asserts specific personal jurisdiction. (Resp. at 12.) The Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test to determine whether a court has specific personal jurisdiction. Specific personal jurisdiction exists if (1) the defendant purposefully directs his activities or consummates some transaction with the forum or a resident thereof, or performs some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See, e.g., CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-76 (1985). Getty bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs. CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1076. The burden then shifts to the Camps toset forth a "compelling case" that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. (quoting Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 476-78). The court will address each of these three factors.
The first prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test refers to both purposeful direction and purposeful availment. Although often "clustered together under a shared umbrella," purposeful availment and purposeful direction "are, in fact, two distinct concepts." Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006)). A purposeful availment analysis is most often used in suits sounding in contract, and a purposeful direction analysis is used in suits sounding in tort. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802....
To continue reading
Request your trial