Yes.
Thursday, LLC and Klhip, Inc. are both retailers that use Amazon to sell nail clippers online. Klhip filed a number of claims with Amazon about Thursday. In response, Amazon would take Thursday down and investigate. Each time, Klhip's allegations have been found baseless (and Thursday's Amazon presence has been restored).
Thursday, a Florida corporation located in Clearwater, sued Klhip for unfair competition, tortious interference, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA) (among other claims). Klhip, whose CEO lives in Idaho, sought to transfer the case there pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) (arguing that venue in M.D. Fla. was entirely improper) or 28 U.S.C. 1404(b) (arguing that it would be more convenient to litigate in Idaho).
Concerning the propriety of venue (28 U.S.C. 1391(b)), the Court quickly disposed of Klhip's challenge. Thursday notes that it sells thousands of its nail clippers in this district, and Klhip's statements about Thursday (to Amazon) have hurt Thursday in this district, thus supporting jurisdiction The Court agreed.
Concerning transfer for convenience of the parties, the Court rejected Klhip's argument that Idaho would be more convenient. The analysis followed the typical analysis in a 1404 decision, but notably noticed the importance of the FDUPTA claim, explaining that: "[a] district judge in Florida indisputably has the advantage in an action based on Florida law and is most adept at applying Florida law. As a result [familiarity with the governing law] distinctly disfavors transfer."
Motion to transfer, denied.
Thursday, LLC v. Klhip, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-1587-T-36AEP (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2018) (J. Honeywell)
Showing posts with label transfer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transfer. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2018
Monday, August 25, 2014
Where To Litigate "Disposable Living-Grass Pet Toilets?"
Fresh Patch, LLC owns U.S. Patent 8,522,719 directed to a pet toilet continuous delivery and replacement method. Fresh Patch ("Real Dogs Use REAL Grass") offers a subscription service where they send you a patch of grass each week for your pet to use as a toilet. DoggieLawn ("Your Dog's Backyard In A Box") offers a competing service. Fresh Patch sued DoggieLawn and its owner for patent infringement. DoggieLawn moved to transfer the case from the Middle District of Florida to DoggieLawn's home in the Central District of California. The Court addressed the typical 1404 factors:
Concerning witness convenience, both parties identified non-party witnesses. Plaintiff's non-party witnesses, however, were not in Florida, so keeping the dispute in Florida was of no great benefit. Defendant identified witnesses from a number of competitors (Pooch Potty, PetaPotty, and Porch Potty), and each of those witnesses were in California. [Ed. Note: Who knew the subscription pet toilet service industry had so many players?]
The Court next noted that the Defendant was a small startup, while Plaintiff's revenues were in excess of $1m. The Court also appeared persuaded (to a small degree) by the fact that Plaintiff's law firm also had an office in California. [Ed. Note: Is this really relevant?]
Generally, a plaintiff's choice of forum will be given deference. But here, the Court appears to have not believed Plaintiff's claim that the Middle District of Florida was its home forum. For instance, Plaintiff could not identify any employees or offices in the Middle District and did not quantify any of its business here.
Motion to transfer, granted.
Fresh Patch, LLC v. Youn, Case No. 8:13-CV-2602 (M.D. Fla. July 25, 2014) (J. Merryday)
Section 1404 factors include (1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Concerning witness convenience, both parties identified non-party witnesses. Plaintiff's non-party witnesses, however, were not in Florida, so keeping the dispute in Florida was of no great benefit. Defendant identified witnesses from a number of competitors (Pooch Potty, PetaPotty, and Porch Potty), and each of those witnesses were in California. [Ed. Note: Who knew the subscription pet toilet service industry had so many players?]
The Court next noted that the Defendant was a small startup, while Plaintiff's revenues were in excess of $1m. The Court also appeared persuaded (to a small degree) by the fact that Plaintiff's law firm also had an office in California. [Ed. Note: Is this really relevant?]
Generally, a plaintiff's choice of forum will be given deference. But here, the Court appears to have not believed Plaintiff's claim that the Middle District of Florida was its home forum. For instance, Plaintiff could not identify any employees or offices in the Middle District and did not quantify any of its business here.
Motion to transfer, granted.
Fresh Patch, LLC v. Youn, Case No. 8:13-CV-2602 (M.D. Fla. July 25, 2014) (J. Merryday)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe via Email