Allchem Performance Products, Inc. v. Aqualine Warehouse, LLC
878 F. Supp. 2d 779
S.D. Tex.2012Background
- AllChem alleges copyright and Lanham Act violations related to trichlor labeling and registration schemes by Arizona-based defendants Aqualine, Kennedy, and Shiner entities, with Texas venues implicated by alleged Texas registrations.
- AllChem asserts federal FIFRA/trichlor registration requirements and state registrations were violated by defendants who used AllChem’s labels and registrations bearing Texas indicators.
- Plaintiff claims defendants conspired to import, label, and distribute trichlor with stolen registrations and to alter labels, causing economic damages.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of Texas personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)) or, in the alternative, improper venue (12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)) or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); they are Arizona residents with no Texas presence.
- The court finds no personal jurisdiction or proper venue in this district and transfers the case to the Phoenix Division of the District of Arizona under § 1406(a).
- The court acknowledges it has federal question jurisdiction under the Copyright Act and Lanham Act, and that venue determination is governed by § 1406(a) rather than the general venue statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over defendants. | AllChem asserts Calder-style effects or minimum contacts through tort-like copyright/infringing actions. | Defendants lack Texas contacts and contests Calder/effects-based jurisdiction as improper for IP claims. | No, the court lacks the required minimum contacts; no specific or general jurisdiction over defendants. |
| Whether venue in the Southern District of Texas is proper and whether transfer is appropriate. | Venue is proper under § 1391 and § 1400(a) due to infringement against a Texas plaintiff. | Venue is improper; defendants are Arizona residents; transfer to Arizona is appropriate for convenience/justice. | Venue is improper; case transferred to the Phoenix Division, District of Arizona under § 1406(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for personal jurisdiction; targeted forum impact)
- Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 1999) ( Calder-like effects test; broader than libel; requires serious forum impact)
- McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2009) (specific jurisdiction requires claim-specific analysis; minimum contacts burden)
- Walk Haydel & Associates v. Coastal Power Production Co., 517 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2008) (preponderance burden guidance; jurisdictional determination can be trialed)
- In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (forum transfer factors; good-cause standard for § 1404(a))
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (transfer of venue; private/public interest factors)
- Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174 (1923) (per § 1400(a) venue for copyright actions; defendant residence/conduct)
- Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1966) (courts consider venue rules in copyright cases)