Green v. Yavruyan
| Decision Date | 17 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:20-cv-00052-TWP-DML |
| Parties | EDDIE M. GREEN, JR., Plaintiff, v. ARA YAVRUYAN, and CHAIN VAULT INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3), (5), and (6) by Defendants Ara Yavruyan ("Yavruyan") and Chain Vault Inc. ("Chain Vault") (collectively, "the Defendants") (Filing No. 29). Pro se Plaintiff Eddie M. Green, Jr. ("Green") initiated this action to assert a claim for patent infringement against Defendants. Green's claim centers on the alleged infringement of Green's patent by the Defendants, which has caused the interruption of his business start-up and damage to his product name (Filing No. 1). In response, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss asserting this judicial district is an improper venue, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Green has failed to effect proper service of process on Defendants, and Green's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Filing No. 29). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required when reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draws all inferences in favor of Green as the non-moving party. See Bielanski v. County of Kane, 550 F.3d 632, 633 (7th Cir. 2008). As a result of multiple filings by Green in this case, a summary of the procedural history is included to help explain the jurisdictional and related issues.
Green is an Indiana resident (Filing No. 1). Chain Vault is a corporation "formed and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware" with its "principal place of business in California." (Filing No. 29-2.) Yavruyan is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Chain Vault. Id. at 1. Yavruyan is a resident of California. Id. at 2.
On March 2, 2020, Green filed a fill-in-the-blank "Complaint for a Civil Case" to initiate this action against the Defendants (Filing No. 1). Green checked the box indicating that this case involves a federal question under 35 U.S.C. § 271. He alleges in his Complaint that the Defendants infringed on a patent issued to him as "Patent Number 9,940,796" ("the 796 Patent"). Id. at 3, 5. Green was "notified...by a friend" on February 28, 2020, that Yavruyan infringed the 796 Patent. Id. at 5. As a result of the Defendants' "actions", his "business start-up has been stopped" and his "product name is damaged." Id. He asserts that the Defendants owe him a minimum of $2,800,000.00 because of the alleged patent infringement. Id. at 4.
After filing the Complaint, Green filed a Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel, (Filing No. 3), which was denied by the Court on March 31, 2020, (Filing No. 8). In the Order, the Court directed the Clerk to issue process consisting of the summons, Complaint, and a copy of the Order to the address listed for Defendants in Green's Complaint. Id. at 3. This address was "321 N. Pass Ave. Suite 222, Burbank, [ ] California 91505". (Filing No. 1 at 2.)
On April 15, 2020, Green filed a premature Motion for Summary Judgment, (Filing No. 11), and on July 27, 2020, Green filed a premature Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Filing No. 15). These filings were premature because Green had not yet effected service on either of the Defendants.
On July 9, 2020, the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") returned the unexecuted summons, Complaint, and Order because it could not locate the Defendants at the address listed in Green's Complaint. On the Process Receipt and Return form ("Process Receipt") used by the USMS for effecting process, the USMS noted that a "second address was found" for the Defendants at "8875 Costa Verde Bl., #A11, San Diego, California 92122." (Filing No. 13.) Thereafter, this Court issued an Order directing the USMS to issue process at the second address found for the Defendants, (Filing No. 16).
On August 4, 2020, this Court issued an Order denying Green's pending motions without prejudice given their premature nature, (Filing No. 19). The Court advised Green that he could refile the premature motions at the appropriate time during litigation after service had been effected. Id.
On October 20, 2020, USMS again returned an unexecuted summons, Complaint, and Order based on the inability of the USMS to locate the second address found for the Defendants, (Filing No. 20). The USMS noted on the Process Receipt for the second address: "Address doesnt [sic] exist/not valid." Id. at 1, 2. As a result, the Court issued an Order on Unexecuted Return of Service, (Filing No. 21), and directed Green to provide an accurate address for service upon Defendants or his Complaint would be subject to mandatory dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. The Court set a November 23, 2020 deadline for Green to provide an accurate address. Id.
Between October 26, 2020 and November 2, 2020, Green submitted several filings ostensibly in support of his attempts at service on Defendants. The filings were a document titled "Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of Service," an "Affidavit in Support of Diligent Search," a document titled "Evidence in Support of Unexecuted Service," a Motion for Alias Summons, anda document titled "Evidence in Support of Executed Return of Service." (Filing No. 22; Filing No. 23; Filing No. 24; Filing No. 25; Filing No. 26).
On November 18, 2020, Green's Motion for Alias Summons was granted, (Filing No. 30). The Clerk of the Court was designated to issue process consisting of summons, Complaint, and the Order on the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Id. On November 19, 2020, the Defendants, having been served, filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, (Filing No. 29).
Between November 25, 2020 and December 22, 2020, Green submitted several more filings including a new Motion for Summary Judgment, (Filing No. 35), and a Motion to Strike Declaration, (Filing No. 37). Green also filed multiple filings opposing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 33; Filing No. 34; Filing No. 38; Filing No. 43; Filing No. 45).
On December 11, 2020, the Defendants asked for a conference with the Court regarding what Defendants deemed as Green's "improper filings". (Filing No. 40.) On December 22, 2020, the Defendants' Motion for a Conference with the Court was granted, (Filing No. 44). In the Order on Defendants' Motion for a Conference, the Court held that a determination of the jurisdictional and related issues raised by the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must be made first before any decisions on Green's subsequent motions could be addressed. Id. The case was stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss and Defendants were instructed that they need not respond to Green's pending motions until further order of the Court. Id.
A. 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) requires dismissal of a claim where personal jurisdiction is lacking. When a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bearsthe burden of demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction. Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003); RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1276 (7th Cir. 1997); Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC v. Weisser, 886 F. Supp. 2d 930, 937 (S.D. Ind. 2012).
When the court determines personal jurisdiction based only on reference to submissions of written materials, rather than based on evidence submitted at a hearing, a plaintiff simply needs to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Purdue Research Found., 338 F.3d at 782; Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 937. In determining whether the plaintiff has met the prima facie standard, the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable resolution of all disputed relevant facts in his or her favor. uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 423-24 (7th Cir. 2010); Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 938. If the defendant has submitted evidence in opposition to the implementation of jurisdiction, "the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction." Purdue Research Found., 338 F.3d at 782-83.
The Court may consider affidavits and all other documentary evidence that have been filed, and any conflicts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff as the non-moving party. Int'l Med. Grp., Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 149 F. Supp. 2d 615, 623 (S.D. Ind. 2001). This evidence submitted by the defendant may include affidavits unless the affidavits "merely contain conclusory assertions that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 938.
"[P]ersonal jurisdictional issues in patent infringement cases are reviewed under Federal Circuit law, not regional circuit law." Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. De Equip. Medico, 563 F.3d 1285, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Nang Kuang Pharm. Co.,No. 1:14-CV-01647-TWP, 2015 WL 5022920, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2015) (); see also Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
A two-step analysis must be undertaken and satisfied before a district court can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. For the first step, the party must be "amenable to service of process under the appropriate state long-arm statute." Hildebrand, 279 F.3d at 1354; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(e), 4(k)(1)(A); Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). In the second part of the inquiry, the culmination of the party's activities within the forum state must satisfy the...
To continue reading
Request your trial