295 F. Supp. 3d 404
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Publishers McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Cengage, and Elsevier allege defendants ran an international scheme since 2015 to reproduce, import, and sell counterfeit textbooks via online marketplaces and freight forwarders.
- Plaintiffs allege iBestBargains purchased counterfeit textbooks from Radhika International and received directed shipments from the Sharma defendants for resale in the U.S. (including sales into New York).
- Plaintiffs conducted jurisdictional discovery and submitted declarations showing: 1,124 sales by iBestBargains into New York marketplaces (7.09% of those marketplaces' sales), an iBestBargains website offering U.S. shipping, and a power of attorney to a New York freight agent that handled multiple shipments.
- iBestBargains moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction) and Rule 12(b)(6) (insufficiently particularized allegations), and sought to exclude or strike plaintiffs’ jurisdictional affidavits.
- The court treated plaintiffs’ jurisdictional showing as a prima facie case (pleadings + affidavits) and considered the jurisdictional discovery; it denied iBestBargains’ motions to dismiss and to strike affidavits, and denied excluding jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under NY CPLR §302(a)(1) | iBestBargains transacted business in NY: regular sales into NY, interactive website shipping to U.S., NY power of attorney/agent handled imports tied to counterfeit suppliers | iBestBargains has no purposeful contacts with NY; affidavits deny NY activities and revenue | Court: prima facie showing of §302(a)(1) jurisdiction satisfied; due process minimum contacts and reasonableness met; motion denied |
| Personal jurisdiction under CPLR §302(a)(3) | (originally relied on) tortious act causing injury in NY from out-of-state conduct | iBestBargains disputed foreseeability/substantial revenue elements | Court did not need to rely on §302(a)(3) because §302(a)(1) sufficed; jurisdiction upheld |
| Sufficiency of pleading (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Complaint alleges roles of each defendant in scheme, time frame, and identifies sample infringed works and sales — provides fair notice | Lumping defendants together fails to give fair notice to iBestBargains | Court: allegations give fair notice despite some collective references; motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) denied |
| Exclusion/striking of jurisdictional discovery and affidavits | Plaintiffs relied on post-complaint discovery/affidavits; iBestBargains sought to exclude them as outside complaint and move to strike as inadmissible | Argued affidavits are self-serving/contradicted and discovery should be limited | Court: jurisdictional discovery consideration is appropriate; evidentiary objections premature; motions to exclude/strike denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) (plaintiff burden on jurisdictional showing)
- Dorchester Fin. Secs., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2013) (prima facie standard after jurisdictional discovery)
- Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) (jurisdictional averment standard)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (internet sales and single shipment as basis for specific jurisdiction)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (§302(a)(1) transaction and relatedness requirement)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts principle)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment/foreseeability)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness factors in jurisdiction analysis)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Rule 8 pleading standards)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must include factual enhancement beyond conclusory allegations)