293 F. Supp. 3d 394
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are major textbook publishers who sued a network of defendants alleging an international scheme to reproduce, import, distribute, and sell counterfeit textbooks; iBestBargains is a Texas LLC alleged to have purchased counterfeit textbooks in bulk and resold them.
- After an August 3, 2017 conference the Court authorized limited jurisdictional discovery.
- On December 12, 2017 the Court denied iBestBargains' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- iBestBargains moved (1) for reconsideration of the December 12 Order and (2) to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); both motions restated arguments the Court previously rejected.
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits regarding test purchases; iBestBargains submitted an affidavit disputing it sold the identified counterfeit books.
- The Court denied reconsideration as untimely and merits‑insufficient, and denied certification of interlocutory appeal as unsuitable and procedurally improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle/timeliness for reconsideration | N/A (plaintiffs opposed) | Motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civ. R. 6.3 to alter the December 12 Order | Motion under Rule 59(e) inapplicable (order not a final judgment); motion under Local Civ. R. 6.3 untimely (filed 27 days after order) — denied |
| Motion for reconsideration — whether Court overlooked controlling law or facts | N/A | Court overlooked plaintiffs' affidavit and defendant affidavit showing iBestBargains did not distribute the identified counterfeit books | Denied on the merits: arguments rehashed prior positions, no controlling authority or overlooked facts shown; affidavits do not defeat prima facie showing at pleading stage |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for personal jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: pleadings, affidavits, and discovery support prima facie jurisdiction based on alleged online sales | iBestBargains: plaintiffs lumped defendants together; pleadings insufficient to show defendant‑specific contacts | Court held plaintiffs made prima facie showing of jurisdiction after jurisdictional discovery; defendant’s challenge rejected |
| Certification of interlocutory appeal under §1292(b) | N/A | Sought certification on whether complaint sufficiently alleged unauthorized distribution and personal jurisdiction | Denied: issues are not pure questions of law (require record/pleading assessment); defendant did not show substantial ground for difference of opinion or that appeal would materially advance termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir.) (standard for reconsideration motions)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.) (addressing online marketplace contacts and personal jurisdiction)
- Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21 (2d Cir.) (interlocutory appeals disfavored; exceptional circumstances required)
- Cal. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.) (§1292(b) limited to legal questions that can be decided without studying the record)
- Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Grp. Inc., 204 F.3d 397 (2d Cir.) (order granting preliminary relief may be treated as a judgment for Rule 59(e) purposes)