Parlant Technology v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, The
2:12-cv-00417
D. UtahSep 29, 2014Background
- Parlant filed suit in the District of Utah against NYCDOE for trademark-related claims (ParentLink)
- NYCDOE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or transfer to SDNY
- Court allowed jurisdictional discovery and later held on the merits that Utah lacked personal jurisdiction over NYCDOE
- Court concluded NYCDOE’s contacts with Utah were insufficient for general or specific jurisdiction tied to this suit
- Court found NYCDOE’s use of the ParentLink name and ARIS Parent Link did not create the required forum-specific act or injury in Utah
- Court transferred the case to the Southern District of New York and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over NYCDOE in Utah | Parlant asserts NYCDOE’s Utah-related branding/website activities infringe and target Utah | NYCDOE contends no sufficient minimum contacts with Utah for basis of jurisdiction | No, Utah lacks specific jurisdiction over NYCDOE |
| Venue propriety in Utah | Utah is the proper forum given Parlant’s Utah base and alleged injury | Venue is improper, as NYCDOE’s actions were centered in New York | No, venue is improper; case should be transferred |
| Appropriateness of transfer to SDNY | Transfer would maintain forum convenience and avoid dismissal | Transfer is appropriate to a more convenient forum | Transfer to SDNY granted; case to be moved there under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1404, 1631 |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (effects test; purposeful direction toward forum state)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) (limits on jurisdiction based on plaintiff's connections; focus on defendant's contacts with forum)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for due process)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) (general jurisdiction requires essentially at-home status; Daimler framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (purposeful direction and relatedness for specific jurisdiction)