ABG Prime Grp., LLC v. Innovative Salon Prods.
326 F. Supp. 3d 498
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- ABG Prime (Michigan LLC) sold authentic LOMA hair-care products via an Amazon storefront; LOMA is not ABG's authorized distributor.
- LOMA filed complaints with Amazon alleging trademark infringement; Amazon twice suspended ABG's selling privileges and permanently barred ABG from selling LOMA products after test buys confirmed authenticity.
- ABG amended its complaint to add Florida defendants (Demosthenes Prodromitis, All Alliance, Total Image), alleging they conspired with LOMA and committed fraud to eliminate ABG from Amazon and restrain trade.
- Florida defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Michigan; they filed a one-sentence local counsel appearance, then promptly moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2).
- The court evaluated whether the appearance forfeited the personal-jurisdiction defense and whether exercise of specific jurisdiction over the Florida defendants comported with due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a one-sentence local appearance waived or forfeited the Florida defendants' personal-jurisdiction defense | The appearance created a reasonable expectation defendants would defend on the merits, so they waived jurisdictional challenge | Appearance complied with local rules and did not put the court to work; defendants promptly gave notice they would move to dismiss | No waiver/forfeiture: appearance did not create wasted court effort or reasonable expectation of merits defense; personal-jurisdiction challenge preserved |
| Whether Michigan courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Florida defendants based on alleged fraud/conspiracy that injured a Michigan plaintiff | The conspiracy targeted ABG (a Michigan company); under Calder/‘effects’ doctrine, defendants purposefully availed themselves of Michigan and suit arises from those acts | Alleged conduct occurred in Florida and Washington via Amazon; injury to a Michigan plaintiff alone is insufficient; defendants lack meaningful contacts with Michigan | No specific jurisdiction: defendants’ contacts with Michigan were minimal and unrelated to the alleged scheme; injury to a Michigan plaintiff alone does not establish minimum contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (minimum-contacts analysis looks to defendant’s contacts with the forum, not just injury to a forum resident)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (‘effects’ test where defendant’s forum-directed conduct caused plaintiff’s forum injury)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishing minimum contacts/due process standard)
- AlixPartners, LLP v. Brewington, 836 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2016) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test in the Sixth Circuit)
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2011) (discussing when appearance may forfeit jurisdictional defenses; conduct-focused inquiry)
- King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (clarifying Gerber: forfeiture depends on all relevant circumstances and whether conduct created reasonable expectation of merits defense)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (specific-jurisdiction principles and relatedness requirement)
- MAG IAS Holdings, Inc. v. Schmuckle, 854 F.3d 894 (6th Cir. 2017) (procedural standards for resolving jurisdictional defenses on affidavits)
- Air Prod. & Controls, Inc. v. Safetech Int’l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2007) (view pleadings/affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiff when deciding prima facie jurisdiction)
- In re Wolverine Radio Co., 930 F.2d 1132 (6th Cir. 1991) (fact-specific analysis of appearance and participation when assessing waiver of jurisdictional defenses)