Shell v. American Family Rights Ass'n
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140449
| D. Colo. | 2012Background
- The Court considers multiple motions to dismiss, a strike, sanctions, and a summary-judgment-style challenge, all related to Shell's claims against AFRA, Swallow, and Henderson.
- Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367; AFRA previously alleged as alter ego but later reinstated as an independent entity for purposes of claims.
- Shell alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement and related theories, plus contract, tort, false advertising, unfair practice, conspiracy, and antitrust claims arising from online dissemination of her works.
- AFRA moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Swallow moves to dismiss on jurisdiction and merits; Henderson moves for summary judgment (treated as 12(b)(6)).
- The Court, after briefing and discovery, dismisses AFRA for lack of personal jurisdiction and limits remaining claims against Swallow and Henderson to certain copyright-related and related claims.
- The Order directs Shell to identify specific infringing acts and sets default-prosecution deadlines for several other defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFRA is subject to personal jurisdiction | Shell argues AFRA purposeful directed activity in Colorado and forum contacts. | AFRA contends lack of sufficient minimum contacts and no relevant forum-directed activity. | AFRA dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Sanctions and striking the motion to dismiss | Shell seeks Rule 11 sanctions for mischaracterizing AFRA as alter ego. | AFRA denies improper admissions and sanctionability. | Sanctions denied; motion to strike denied. |
| Whether Shell states plausible claims against Swallow and Henderson under Rule 12(b)(6) | Shell asserts misappropriation, copyright infringement and related claims; seeks relief, including amendments. | Defendants argue insufficient facts and limitations issues; some claims dismissed or limited. | Swallow: partial dismissal; Henderson: partial dismissal; some claims remaining for copyright-related theories. |
| Whether other theories (agency, conspiracy, forum clause) sustain jurisdiction or claims | Shell relies on agency, conspiracy, and forum-selection concepts to reach AFRA. | No adequate basis shown for agency/conspiracy-based jurisdiction; forum clause insufficiently proven. | No jurisdiction or independent basis established; AFRA claims dismissed; forum clause not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Energy Corp. v. Nukem, Inc., 400 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2005) (judicial admissions and association status analyzed; context for admissions and entity status)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and due process in personal jurisdiction)
- Omi Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) (minimum contacts; general vs specific jurisdiction framework)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (internet activities and purposeful direction for jurisdiction)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (minimum contacts and factual disputes in jurisdictional analysis)
- Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2000) (test for commercial advertising/competition under Lanham Act)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standards in pleading context)