BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Vensoft, Inc., 2:17-cv-05456

Plaintiff BWP Media USA, Inc. filed a copyright infringement complaint against Vensoft, Inc., alleging direct and contributory/vicarious infringement.
Plaintiff asserts federal subject-matter jurisdiction and alleges venue in the Central District of California because it does business in the district and/or a substantial part of the events occurred there.
Defendant Vensoft is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that Vensoft “purposely directs substantial activities” at California residents via its websites and that the sites target California.
The court found plaintiff’s allegations insufficient to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction: no facts showing continuous/systematic contacts for general jurisdiction, and no “something more” beyond maintaining websites for specific jurisdiction.
The court issued an order to show cause requiring plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or transferred for improper venue, with a deadline to respond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has general personal jurisdiction over Vensoft	Vensoft does business such that it can be sued in CA	Vensoft is an Arizona corp with no continuous/systematic contacts in CA	Not shown; plaintiff alleged only conclusory facts, so general jurisdiction not established
Whether court has specific personal jurisdiction over Vensoft	Vensoft targets California via its websites, causing the infringement	Mere maintenance of websites does not establish purposeful direction or availment	Not shown; plaintiff failed to allege conduct beyond passive websites or facts tying claims to CA contacts
Whether plaintiff’s allegations satisfy purposeful direction/availment standards	Website targeting + plaintiff located in CA suffices	Plaintiff cannot be sole link; must show defendant’s contacts with forum itself	Plaintiff’s pleadings are conclusory and insufficient under Walden and related Ninth Circuit standards
Whether case should be dismissed or transferred if jurisdiction/venue lacking	Plaintiff seeks to proceed in this district	Defendant implies venue improper if jurisdiction lacking	Court ordered plaintiff to show cause by deadline; failure to respond may result in dismissal without prejudice or transfer

Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (venue in copyright cases governed by section 1400(a))
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render defendant at home)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction; purposeful availment vs. purposeful direction)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdictional contacts must be with the forum state itself, not merely with forum residents)
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (operating a passive website plus something more that directly targets the forum can support specific jurisdiction)