Quill Ink Books Ltd. v. Abcd Graphics & Design, Inc.
361 F. Supp. 3d 1153
W.D. Okla.2019Background
- Quill Ink Books Ltd., a London-based publisher, sued author Rachelle Soto (pseudonym Addison Cain), Blushing Books (VA), and others alleging wrongful DMCA takedown notices and related torts and seeking declaratory relief, damages, and injunctions.
- Plaintiff alleges Soto and Blushing Books sent DMCA notices to multiple online vendors, including Draft2Digital, causing loss of sales.
- Draft2Digital has its principal address in Oklahoma; Plaintiff alleges a takedown was sent to Draft2Digital on April 19, 2018.
- Soto moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer; Plaintiff opposed.
- The Court evaluated only specific personal jurisdiction under Oklahoma law (long-arm to the constitutional limit) and federal due-process "minimum contacts" principles.
- The Court granted Soto's motion and dismissed claims against Soto without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, declining to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending a DMCA notice to Draft2Digital establishes specific personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma | Soto (with Blushing) directed a takedown to Draft2Digital, an Oklahoma distributor, so Soto purposefully directed conduct at Oklahoma | Soto denies personal involvement; even if involved, a single, geographically neutral notice to a nonlocal distributor is insufficient to target Oklahoma | No jurisdiction: single notice to Draft2Digital (non‑Oklahoma‑focused) did not expressly aim at Oklahoma or show Soto knew the brunt of the injury would be felt there |
| Whether alleged tortious interference with the Draft2Digital contract supports jurisdiction | Interference with an Oklahoma contract (property right) subjects Soto to jurisdiction in Oklahoma | Soto lacked any purposeful contacts or knowledge that Draft2Digital/contract tied to Oklahoma; no purposeful availment | No jurisdiction: Plaintiff failed to show Soto knew the contract/harms were centered in Oklahoma |
| Whether the court should transfer rather than dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 | Transfer to Virginia (Soto & Blushing's forum) would serve justice; claims not plainly time‑barred or meritless | Argues dismissal appropriate given lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiff should have known forum was improper | Dismissal without prejudice: transfer not in the interest of justice (statute‑of‑limitations and good‑faith factors weighed against transfer) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir.) (three‑part Calder/Dudnikov purposeful‑direction test for noncontract torts)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (internet postings must make forum the focal point or target forum audience to establish jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (defendants' out‑of‑state conduct expressly aimed at forum where plaintiff lived and worked supports jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment framework)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due process requires minimum contacts and fair play/substantial justice)
- Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.) (transfer under § 1631 when in interest of justice)
- Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (transfer appropriate for cures to jurisdictional defects)
- OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.) (standards for specific and general jurisdiction)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. McGlamery, 74 F.3d 218 (10th Cir.) (§ 1631 can remedy lack of personal jurisdiction)