Express Oil Change, LLC v. Car Wash Partners Inc
2:19-cv-01640
N.D. Ala.Mar 20, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Express Oil Change (Delaware LLC, principal place of business in Alabama) sues Car Wash Partners (doing business as Mister Car Wash) for Lanham Act claims: trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution.
- Car Wash Partners operates no stores, employees, advertising, or business in Alabama but runs a website using the phrase "OIL CHANGE EXPRESS;" Express’s marketing EVP accessed the site from Birmingham.
- Car Wash Partners attempted to register "MISTER OIL CHANGE EXPRESS" and was refused; a revised application remains pending.
- Express relies on the website’s accessibility in Alabama to assert specific personal jurisdiction; Car Wash Partners moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2).
- The court determined that mere website accessibility and Express’s Alabama-based injury do not establish the defendant’s purposeful contacts with Alabama.
- Result: the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has specific personal jurisdiction over Car Wash Partners based on its website being accessible in Alabama and Express’s principal place of business in Alabama | Website accessible to Alabama residents and Express is headquartered in Alabama, so Calder/Licciardello allow jurisdiction from website effects | Car Wash Partners has no physical presence, employees, advertising, or business in Alabama; mere website accessibility and plaintiff's injury in Alabama do not show purposeful availment | Court held no specific jurisdiction: mere website accessibility and plaintiff's residence are insufficient; claim does not arise from defendant's contacts with Alabama; dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (articulates the "effects" test for purposeful targeting in intentional tort cases)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (plaintiff's forum residence and injury alone do not establish defendant's forum contacts)
- Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2008) (permitting jurisdiction where internet use deliberately misappropriated a specific Florida individual's name/likeness)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (elements of specific personal jurisdiction articulated)
- Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff's burden and treatment of allegations in personal jurisdiction motions)
- United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff's prima facie burden to plead jurisdictional facts)
- Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2002) (burden shifts to plaintiff to produce evidence after defendant submits affidavits)
- Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990) (conflicts between complaint and affidavits construed in plaintiff's favor)
- Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922 (11th Cir. 2007) (Alabama long-arm statute interpreted to reach constitutionally permissible limits)