Touch, LLC v. All Done Management Group, Inc

Opinion

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 TOUCH, LLC, 8 Case No. 2:20-cv-01385-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 9 ORDER v. 10 [Docket No. 14] ALL DONE MANAGEMENT GROUP, 11 INC., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment. Docket No. 14 14. The motion has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge. 15 “A defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered 16 judgment.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002). 17 Instead, whether to enter default judgment is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the district 18 court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). As part of that exercise of 19 discretion, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts have a duty to ensure that they have a proper 20 basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the absent defendant. Tuli v. Republic of Iraq, 172 21 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). 22 Plaintiff’s motion does not explain how the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, 23 which operates in California. See Docket No. 1 at ¶ 15; see also id. at ¶ 2 (providing allegations 24 regarding personal jurisdiction). Moreover, the case law raises concerns that personal jurisdiction 25 may be lacking in this case. Cf. Bellagio, LLC v. Bellagio Car Wash & Exp. Lube, 116 F. Supp. 26 3d 1166, 1170-73 (D. Nev. 2015) (holding that personal jurisdiction was lacking for trademark 27 infringement matter arising out of Los Angeles-based carwash using “Bellagio” name). The 28 briefing is not sufficient to make a determination as to personal jurisdiction. ] Accordingly, the motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed 2|| motion must be filed by April 25, 2022, and must provide meaningfully developed argument! as 3] to how the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 4, 2022 _A Nancy J..Koppe 7 United Statés Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The case law regarding personal jurisdiction in the context of alleged intellectual property infringement has been evolving in recent years. See Jagen Invs. LLC v. Cannon Fin’ Inst., Inc., at *2-5 (D. Nev. June 27, 2016), adopted, 2018 WL 4335619, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 11, 2018); see also Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int., Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068-71 (9th Cir. 2017). Any 28]| renewed motion must include a fulsome discussion regarding the current state of the law.