United States District Court, D. Nevada
ULTRAMAX PRODUCTS LTD., A United Kingdom Limited Company, Plaintiff,
ANTHONY MICHAEL MITCHELL, An individual residing in Nevada, Defendant.
C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant, claiming to be unrepresented,  filed two motions
contemporaneously: Motion to Quash (ECF No. 14) and Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 15). In these motions, the Defendant asks
this Court to quash service and to dismiss the case pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b). Together the
motions raise the defenses: (1) lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, (2) lack of personal jurisdiction, (3) improper
venue, and (4) insufficient service of process. The Court
finds that all of the defenses are meritless and denies the
Plaintiff raises six counts against the Defendant under
federal intellectual property law and one count under Nevada
law for deceptive trade practices and false advertising. The
Defendant did not file anything in this case besides these
motions, more than seven weeks after the Plaintiff submitted
an affidavit that service was executed. The failure to file
anything for seven weeks after service raises concerns about
timeliness. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (allotting twenty-one
days to file an answer). The Court does not presently address
timeliness, since the motions raise issues that could void a
default judgment were the Court to grant one. Fed.R.Civ.P.
courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction and
only have the power to hear cases under the authority of the
Constitution or statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party
asserting that federal jurisdiction is proper bears the
burden of proving the presumption against it. Id.
FRCP 12(b)(1) provides an affirmative defense for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. When a federal court concludes
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss
the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y &
H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
avenue for a federal court to find subject-matter
jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. This type of
jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear “all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
“Arising under” requires that the plaintiff's
complaint raises federal causes of action-defenses and
counterclaims are not relevant. In re Border
Infrastructure Envtl. Litig., 915 F.3d 1213, 1222 (9th
Cir. 2019) (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.
Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)).
Plaintiff raises causes of action under both federal and
state law, then the Court may, in its discretion, invoke
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367. In order for supplemental jurisdiction to
be proper, the “state and federal claims must derive
from a common nucleus of operative fact.” United
Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
Jurisdiction exists if: (1) provided for by law and (2) the
exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. See
Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1207 (9th
Cir. 1980). When no federal statute governs personal
jurisdiction, a federal court applies the law of the forum
state. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015
(9th Cir. 2008). Where a state has a “long-arm”
statute providing its courts' jurisdiction to the fullest
extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as Nevada does, Southport Lane Equity II, LLC
v. Downey, 177 F.Supp.3d 1286, 1290 (D. Nev. 2016), a
court need only address federal due process standards,
see Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Thus, the exercise
of personal jurisdiction in Nevada need only comport with the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general
jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. In the
mid-to-late-Twentieth Century, the federal courts developed a
rule that general jurisdiction existed over a defendant in
any state with which the defendant had
“substantial” or “continuous and
systematic” contacts such that the assertion of
personal jurisdiction over him would be constitutionally fair
even where the claims at issue were unrelated to those
contacts. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006).
where there is no general jurisdiction over a defendant,
specific jurisdiction exists when there are sufficient
contacts with the forum state such that the assertion of
personal jurisdiction “does not offend
‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'” Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of
Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326
U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311
U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). The Ninth Circuit has developed a
three-part test for specific jurisdiction:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he
purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the ...