Innovative Solutions International Inc v. Houlihan Trading Co Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 4, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00296
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS CASE NO. C22-0296-JCC INTERNATIONAL INC., 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 HOULIHAN TRADING CO. INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Marcus Technologies LLC’s motion to 17 dismiss (Dkt. No. 80). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant 18 record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the 19 reasons explained herein. 20 This is a product liability action brought by Plaintiff Innovative Solutions International 21 (“Innovative”). (Dkt. No. 83.) According to the Third Amended Complaint, Innovative had a 22 contract with Trader Joe’s to sell chicken burgers, but Trader Joe’s terminated the relationship 23 after customers reported bones and bone fragment in the burgers. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff brought 24 suit against each of the companies in the supply chain, including Marcus Technologies for 25 breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, 26 and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). (Id. at 12–15.) Marcus 1 Technologies moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 80.) 2 If a defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal 3 jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the exercise of jurisdiction is 4 appropriate. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Innovative does not 5 oppose the dismissal of Marcus Technologies for lack of personal jurisdiction and does not 6 present any evidence to demonstrate jurisdiction is appropriate. (See Dkt. No. 97.) 7 Moreover, Marcus Technologies is a Texas based corporation with extremely limited 8 contacts with Washington and had no contact with Washington in the transactions at issue here. 9 (Dkt. No. 80 at 3–5.) Thus, Marcus Technologies does not have sufficient contacts with the state 10 to establish specific or general jurisdiction and this Court does not have personal jurisdiction 11 over it. 12 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Marcus Technologies LLC’s motion to dismiss 13 (Dkt. No. 80) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Marcus Technologies are DISMISSED 14 without prejudice. 15 DATED this 4th day of January 2023. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26