Express Lien Inc v. Expressliens USA, Inc.
2:17-cv-02871
E.D. La.Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Express Liens, Inc. (Delaware corp.; New Orleans principal place of business) operates an accounts-receivable / construction payment software platform and website.
- Defendant Expressliens USA, Inc. (Florida corporation) is accused of copying portions of Plaintiff’s website and operating a confusingly similar site, giving rise to federal and state claims (copyright, trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, cybersquatting, unfair trade practices, breach of contract).
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to Plaintiff’s website "terms of use" by creating a free user account, which included a forum-selection clause designating the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for intellectual-property disputes.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; Plaintiff opposed, invoking the forum-selection clause.
- The Court considered the complaint and submitted materials without an evidentiary hearing and treated the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for prima facie jurisdictional purposes.
- The Court denied the motion, finding the forum-selection clause (as alleged and not meaningfully disputed) consents to jurisdiction and venue in the Eastern District of Louisiana for the IP claims at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction | Plaintiff: Defendant consented by agreeing to website terms containing a forum-selection clause for IP disputes | Defendant: Court lacks personal jurisdiction and venue is improper | Held: Denied dismissal; forum-selection clause permits jurisdiction and venue for IP claims |
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause | Plaintiff: Clause is part of the terms of use and covers copyright/trademark disputes | Defendant: Did not meaningfully dispute clause text in opposition | Held: Clause presumed enforceable; plaintiff met burden to show consent |
| Burden of proof on jurisdictional showing | Plaintiff: Prima facie showing suffices without evidentiary hearing | Defendant: Challenges require dismissal absent jurisdictional contacts | Held: Court applied prima facie standard and accepted plaintiff’s allegations |
| Requirement to produce the written terms | Plaintiff: Alleged clause in complaint and opposition though did not attach full terms | Defendant: Not asserting the quoted clause’s content was false | Held: Absence of attachment did not defeat enforcement where defendant did not controvert clause content |
Key Cases Cited
- Luv N’ care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir.) (burden on party invoking court’s power in personal-jurisdiction challenge)
- Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir.) (prima facie showing of jurisdiction required when no evidentiary hearing)
- Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir.) (allegations in complaint taken as true unless controverted by opposing affidavits)
- Jobe v. ATR Mktg., Inc., 87 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (trial court may consider materials beyond pleadings in jurisdictional inquiry)
- Colwell Realty Invs. v. Triple T. Inns of Ariz., 785 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir.) (permissible discovery materials for jurisdictional determination)
- Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758 (5th Cir.) (permissive forum-selection clauses can waive jurisdiction and venue objections)
- Ginter ex rel. Ballard v. Belcher, Prendergast & Laporte, 536 F.3d 439 (5th Cir.) (forum-selection clauses are presumptively enforceable; resisting party bears heavy burden)