Motus, LLC v. CarData Consultants, Inc., 23 F.4th 115

Motus, a Delaware LLC with principal place of business in Boston, sued Toronto-based CarData under the Lanham Act and related state-law claims, alleging CarData infringed Motus’s claimed rights in the phrase "corporate reimbursement services."
Motus alleged the Phrase appeared in CarData’s website meta title; CarData removed the Phrase within days after Motus sent a cease-and-desist letter.
CarData moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); it submitted an affidavit and exhibits about its website and U.S. offices (Colorado and New York).
Motus relied on CarData’s website content (North America marketing, U.S. offices, "request a demo" form) to argue CarData purposefully availed itself of Massachusetts; Motus also sought jurisdictional discovery in a single sentence in its opposition.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no "something more" beyond a generally accessible website to show purposeful availment, and denied jurisdictional discovery for lack of diligence and specificity.
Motus appealed; the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal and the denial of jurisdictional discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof on jurisdictional facts	Motus: CarData bore the burden to disprove contacts; Motus need not have pled jurisdictional facts.	CarData: Plaintiff bears burden to proffer facts showing jurisdiction once challenged.	Held: Motus misallocates the burden; plaintiff must produce jurisdictional facts when challenged.
Specific jurisdiction in Massachusetts	Motus: CarData’s website and U.S. offices targeted U.S./Mass. customers and generated contacts supporting specific jurisdiction.	CarData: Website was generally accessible and not targeted to Massachusetts; no evidence of MA customers or revenue.	Held: No specific jurisdiction — website and out-of-state offices alone do not show purposeful availment of MA.
Intentional-tort (Calder) theory	Motus: Using the Phrase in the meta title was an intentional tort aimed at Motus (MA company), supporting jurisdiction.	CarData: No evidence it knew of Motus or that Motus was in MA; trademark torts need not be knowingly committed.	Held: Calder theory fails — must show defendant knew of the plaintiff and its forum; no such evidence here.
Rule 4(k)(2) nationwide jurisdiction	Motus: CarData’s U.S.-wide contacts permit jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).	CarData: Motus failed to make prima facie showing and did not certify that defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state.	Held: Motus failed to provide the required certification and prima facie showing; Rule 4(k)(2) inapplicable.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2016) (prima facie standard and reliance on pleadings/affidavits on jurisdictional motion)
Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (courts disregard unsupported allegations in jurisdictional analysis)
Chen v. U.S. Sports Acad., Inc., 956 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2020) (specific-jurisdiction framework and purposeful availment analysis in website cases)
United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 191 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 1999) (Rule 4(k)(2) prima facie burden-shifting and certification requirement)
Swiss Am. II, United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir. 2001) (standards for jurisdictional discovery and diligence)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for due process)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (intentional-tort "expressly aimed" test for specific jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (foreseeability and purposeful availment principles)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (U.S. 2021) (relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction)
Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (website contacts and purposeful availment analysis)