Pelle Pelle, Incorporated v. Billionaire Mafia, LLC
2:10-cv-11532
E.D. Mich.Feb 24, 2011Background
- Pelle Pelle, Inc. filed a Lanham Act action (case no. 10-11532) against Billionaire Mafia, LLC in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff presiding.
- Billionaire Mafia is a Nevada LLC with its principal office in Las Vegas and a website used to sell clothing.
- Plaintiff asserts Michigan residency-style contacts through a Michigan t-shirt purchase from Defendant’s site and Defendant’s twelve Michigan retail accounts prior to filing.
- The Court granted limited discovery on jurisdiction and allowed supplemental briefing after initial discovery responses were deemed inadequate.
- The court ultimately held that it had personal jurisdiction over Billionaire Mafia and also denied a venue transfer to Nevada.
- Conclusion at end of opinion: Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied and transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan long-arm statute authorizes PJ | Pelle Pelle argues Michigan § 600.715 applies due to online sales and Michigan accounts. | Billionaire Mafia contends contacts are insufficient or not purposeful. | Yes; PJ authorized under § 600.715. |
| Whether exercise of PJ would offend due process | Defendant purposefully availed itself of Michigan and purpose and effects connect to Michigan. | Defendant contends contacts are minimal and not sufficiently connected. | Yes; exercise of PJ would not offend due process. |
| Whether defendant's activities establish purposeful availment and substantial connection | Website interacts with Michigan residents and Michigan retailers are engaged; sales occur in Michigan. | Arguments about scope of Midwest rep and limited t-shirt sale are insufficient. | Yes; purposeful availment and substantial connection established. |
| Whether transfer of venue to Nevada would be warranted | Plaintiff forum is convenient; Nevada lacks proper connection burden. | Defendant argues Nevada forum is superior due to lack of Michigan contacts and documents w/ witnesses in Nevada. | Denied; venue transfer not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1458 (6th Cir. 1991) (three-path decision: decide on affidavits, permit discovery, or hold hearing)
- Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 875 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1989) (standard for discovery in PJ matters; preponderance after limited discovery)
- Mohasco Corp. v. Boeing Co., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (Mohasco three-part due process test)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (purposeful availment via interactive website and forum connections)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and substantial connection analysis under due process)
- LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enters., 885 F.2d 1293 (6th Cir. 1989) (scope of contacts and due process in PJ analysis)
- Sifers v. Horen, 188 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. 1971) (transaction of business within the state interpretation under Mich. long-arm statute)
- Lanier v. Am. Bd. of Endodontics, 843 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. 1988) (transacting business in forum and related contacts considerations)