Bigelow v. Tom Garrett & Tom Garrett for Cong., 299 F. Supp. 3d 34

Background

Plaintiff Todd Bigelow, a California photographer, alleges defendants Rep. Tom Garrett (Virginia resident) and his campaign committee used Bigelow's copyrighted photograph in 2016 political advertising without permission, claiming willful copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.
Garrett and Tom Garrett for Congress are based in Virginia; the Committee registered and operated primarily in Virginia and did not maintain D.C. offices or employees.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)) or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Western District of Virginia; plaintiff opposed and sought counsel disqualification and jurisdictional discovery.
Bigelow's jurisdictional allegations focused on: donations and expenditures involving D.C. entities, use/display of the photograph on websites and an email blast, and professional ties to D.C.-based Republican committees.
The court found Bigelow’s factual allegations insufficient to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction in D.C., denied jurisdictional discovery, granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Western District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has general jurisdiction over committee or Garrett in D.C.	Bigelow: Committee’s payments to D.C. entities, donations from D.C. residents, and online dissemination show continuous/systematic contacts.	Garrett/Committee: Are domiciled and operate in Virginia; D.C. contacts are limited and not "essentially at home."	No general jurisdiction; D.C. contacts insufficient and Garrett domiciled in Virginia.
Whether court has specific jurisdiction under D.C. long‑arm (§13‑423) for copyright tort	Bigelow: Fundraising, payments to D.C. vendors, website/email distribution, and ties to D.C. committees connect the infringement to D.C.	Defendants: Alleged acts either occurred in Virginia or are insufficiently tied to D.C.; online accessibility and donor communications alone don’t create specific jurisdiction.	No specific jurisdiction: allegations do not show acts in D.C. causing injury there or sufficient persistent business to satisfy (a)(1),(a)(3),(a)(4).
Whether to allow jurisdictional discovery requested by plaintiff	Bigelow: Discovery could show where ads were created/disseminated and D.C. business activity.	Defendants: Discovery is speculative and would not cure deficiencies; burden unjustified.	Denied: Plaintiff’s requests speculative and unlikely to establish personal jurisdiction.
If venue/jurisdiction improper, whether transfer to W.D. Va. is appropriate	Bigelow: Opposed (sought stay pending disqualification/discovery).	Defendants: Transfer preferable to dismissal; W.D. Va. is proper because defendants reside and operate there.	Transfer granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to Western District of Virginia in interest of justice.

Key Cases Cited

Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears prima facie burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
First Chicago Int'l v. United Exch. Co., 836 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (conclusory statements insufficient for prima facie showing)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction; "essentially at home" standard)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limitations on general jurisdiction over corporations)
FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (website access and isolated contacts insufficient for general jurisdiction)
Forras v. Rauf, 812 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (interpretation of D.C. long‑arm statute and specific jurisdiction analysis)
Costello Publ’g Co. v. Rotelle, 670 F.2d 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (copyright infringement analogous to tort for long‑arm purposes)
AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1–1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (venue under §1400 tied to personal jurisdiction)