3:22-cv-06031
D.N.J.Jul 31, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Performance Screen Supply, LLC is a New Jersey custom-printing company that alleged Ryonet Corp. (Washington) used Plaintiff's trade name in online ads, diverting customers.
- Ryonet previously settled with Plaintiff for $5,000 and agreed not to use or register the phrase "performance screen supply."
- Plaintiff discovered alleged renewed use of its trade name in April 2022 and sued Ryonet and former Ryonet CEO Ryan Moor in New Jersey state court; the case was removed to federal court.
- Moor signed the settlement on behalf of Ryonet as CEO but resigned as CEO in 2021, remaining Chairman; Moor resides in Brush Prairie, Washington and attended Atlantic City tradeshows annually from 2012–2019.
- Plaintiff sued Moor individually on Counts Two (breach of contract) and Three (unfair competition); Moor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed Counts Two and Three against Moor without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied jurisdictional discovery; it did not reach Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has general jurisdiction over Moor | Moor regularly appears in NJ (annual tradeshows) and thus is subject to jurisdiction | Moor is domiciled in Washington; transient trade-show visits are not continuous/systematic enough | No general jurisdiction — Moor is not domiciled in NJ and contacts are not continuous/substantial |
| Whether the Court has specific jurisdiction over Moor for breach of contract (Count Two) | Moor directed Ryonet to breach the settlement and signed the agreement, so claims arise from his acts | Moor was not a party to the settlement in his individual capacity; acts were on behalf of Ryonet | No specific jurisdiction — Moor was not an individual party to the contract; signing was on behalf of Ryonet |
| Whether the Court has specific jurisdiction over Moor for unfair competition (Count Three) | Moor individually conducted and authorized the unfair trade practices | Moor lacked sufficient personal contacts with NJ tied to the alleged 2022 misconduct; his last tradeshow attendance was 2019 | No specific jurisdiction — Plaintiff failed to plead Moor’s relevant suit-related contacts with NJ |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery (veil-piercing) should be allowed to show Moor’s personal contacts | Plaintiff seeks discovery to show Moor treats Ryonet as his alter ego and controls it personally | Moor denies control; plaintiff’s allegations are speculative and conclusory | Denied — plaintiff’s veil-piercing allegations are conclusory and do not show with reasonable particularity that discovery would produce jurisdictional facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (courts should resolve jurisdictional questions before merits when appropriate)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and relatedness of claim)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction over individuals is typically limited to domicile)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State)
- O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (New Jersey long-arm statute interpreted to provide due-process limits)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional discovery appropriate only when plaintiff presents facts suggesting jurisdiction with reasonable particularity)