Buckley v. Universal Sewing Supply, Inc.
1:19-cv-00794
| M.D. Penn. | Dec 9, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Karen Kay Buckley, a Pennsylvania quilt-scissor designer (Carlisle, PA), negotiated a distribution deal with Universal Sewing Supply; Defendant issued large purchase orders in 2017, Plaintiff shipped scissors from Pennsylvania and received payment by mail to her PA address.
- Plaintiff alleges Universal breached a no-Amazon sales promise, ceased responding to complaints, and sold virtually identical "copycat" scissors and packaging, harming Plaintiff’s IP rights.
- Plaintiff sued (May 9, 2019) alleging copyright infringement, Lanham Act/trade dress claims, state misappropriation and common-law unfair competition.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri; the court ordered jurisdictional discovery and took testimony/deposition.
- After reviewing documentary evidence and the CEO’s deposition, the court found Defendant purposefully directed activities at Pennsylvania (direct purchases from Plaintiff; sales to PA vendors), that the claims arise from those contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction is reasonable; the court denied the motion to dismiss and denied transfer under §1404(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (specific): whether Universal has sufficient Pennsylvania contacts | Universal initiated and completed purchases from a Carlisle seller, had emails/purchase orders showing PA origin, paid Plaintiff in PA, and sold scissors to PA vendors | Universal contended it did not knowingly transact with a Pennsylvania seller and that its contacts do not show deliberate targeting of PA | Court held specific jurisdiction exists: Defendant purposefully directed activities to PA (direct purchases, sales to PA vendors), agency knowledge imputed to company, contacts exceed "stream of commerce" allegations |
| Relatedness: whether Plaintiff’s tort claims arise out of Defendant’s PA contacts | Plaintiff argued her tort claims (Lanham, copyright, trade dress, misappropriation) are tied to Defendant’s purchases and sales involving PA | Defendant argued its contacts were not sufficiently causally connected to Plaintiff’s claims | Court applied Danziger relaxed standard for unintentional torts and found Defendant’s PA contacts were but-for causes of the claims and sufficiently related |
| Fair play & substantial justice (reasonableness) | Plaintiff emphasized Defendant benefitted from PA market and that litigation burden is not oppressive | Defendant argued burden of litigating in PA (witnesses/evidence in Missouri) makes jurisdiction unreasonable | Court found Defendant failed to present a compelling case; burdens manageable (electronic discovery, travel), PA has interest in adjudicating and jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to E.D. Missouri | Plaintiff favored keeping venue in MDPA; court should respect plaintiff’s chosen forum | Defendant sought transfer for convenience of witnesses/evidence located in St. Louis | Court denied transfer: Defendant failed to show key evidence/witnesses unavailable or that transfer would materially enhance convenience or justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (prima facie standard for personal jurisdiction at motion stage)
- O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (purposeful direction contacts and relatedness inquiry)
- Danziger v. De Llano, 948 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2020) (standards for relatedness: proximate causation for contracts; relaxed but-for standard for unintentional torts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (fair play and substantial justice factors; foreseeability and reasonable anticipation)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction "essentially at home" standard)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (due process and defendant burden discussion)
- Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., 149 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1998) (contacts that confer benefits and obligations under forum law)