Swanson v. Harrison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW R. SWANSON, No. 1:23-cv-6-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. 14 JUSTIN R. HARRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Matthew R. Swanson maintains claims of trademark infringement, trademark 18 counterfeiting, and related state law claims against defendants Justin R. Harrison, Samantha J. 19 Harrison, Rockers Guitar, Ltd., The British Pedal Company, London Vintage Guitars, Denmark 20 Street Guitars, and Hanks Guitar Shop. (ECF No. 2.) Presently pending before the court is 21 plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, filed on June 14, 2023, against all defendants on all 22 claims. (ECF No. 32.) In order to resolve plaintiff’s motion, the court requires supplemental 23 briefing, to be filed by January 8, 2024, on the following subjects: 24 1. In the briefing, plaintiff states he wishes the court to take judicial notice of certain facts, 25 citing his request for judicial notice in support of motion for default judgment at ¶ 1. 26 (ECF No. 32 at 4.) No such request was filed. Should plaintiff still wish the court to take 27 notice of certain facts, this request must be filed with the court. 28 /// ] 2. Inthe complaint and briefing, plaintiff asserts the court has personal jurisdiction over 2 defendants, all U.K. citizens. (See ECF No. 2 at [ff 6-7 (averring personal jurisdiction 3 because defendants purposefully directed acts at this district, purposefully availed 4 themselves of the forum, and are subject to California’s long arm statute).) Despite these 5 averments, the complaint and briefing appear to omit necessary facts on topic, instead 6 simply stating defendants offered and sold the infringing goods via a website to “a 7 customer in the United States.” (Id. at § 41.) This does not comport with recent law in 8 this circuit, as it is not clear whether the goods were actually sold to a customer in this 9 forum. See Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2023) 10 (noting that operating a website “in conjunction with ‘something more’—conduct directly 11 targeting the forum—is sufficient” to satisfy the express aiming prong, and holding that 12 “if a defendant, in its regular course of business, sells a physical product via an interactive 13 website and causes that product to be delivered to the forum, the defendant ‘expressly 14 aimed’ its conduct at that forum.”). If plaintiff intends to take advantage of this recent 15 holding from the Ninth Circuit, he must inform the court of the forum where this customer 16 purchased the goods in question. If plaintiff means for the court to have personal 17 jurisdiction over defendants under some other framework, he shall provide this argument 18 in the supplemental briefing. 19 3. Plaintiff moves for default judgment on ten claims against all defendants. However, given 20 the facts, these claims appear duplicative of one another. Thus, it is likely that granting 21 default on, for example, the trademark infringement claim will provide plaintiff with all 22 the relief he seeks, allowing for dismissal of the remaining claims. If plaintiff believes 23 there is some relief he seeks that cannot be afforded against any defendant under the first 24 claim only, he shall argue as much in the supplemental briefing. 25 || Dated: December 21, 2023 %6 Foci) Aharon 27 KENDALL J. NE ewan.6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28