Voodoo SAS v. SayGames LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-07480
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Voodoo SAS v. SayGames LLC, Judge Freeman denied Voodoo’s request for jurisdictional discovery without prejudice.
Voodoo SAS’s request for jurisdictional discovery was denied without prejudice; SayGames LLC’s motion to dismiss remained to be addressed.
What happened
Voodoo SAS sued SayGames LLC over alleged copying of Voodoo’s mobile game Shape Shifter 3D by SayGames’ game Jelly Shift. SayGames moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Voodoo asked to conduct discovery about whether the court had power over SayGames before responding to the dismissal motion. The court said it was unclear whether the parties had disputed facts requiring discovery, and the proposed discovery appeared too broad on the current record.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Voodoo’s motion for jurisdictional discovery without prejudice. The court said Voodoo could raise the need for discovery in its response to SayGames’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Voodoo SAS v. SayGames LLC · No. 5:19-cv-07480
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
Voodoo SAS, described in the opinion as a French mobile game app developer, sued SayGames LLC, described as a Belarusian mobile game app developer. Voodoo alleged that SayGames copied protectable and distinctive elements of Voodoo’s mobile game Shape Shifter 3D in SayGames’ game Jelly Shift. The complaint asserted copyright infringement and related claims.
SayGames moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. After that motion was filed, the parties asked to address jurisdictional discovery before completing briefing on the motion to dismiss.
Jurisdictional Discovery Request
Jurisdictional discovery is fact gathering intended to help decide whether a court has personal jurisdiction, meaning legal power over a defendant. Voodoo argued that discovery was justified because facts in a declaration from SayGames’ chief operating officer were disputed and because additional facts were needed to make a more satisfactory showing of jurisdiction.
The court concluded that it was unclear whether the declaration disputed facts alleged in the complaint or included facts relevant to specific jurisdiction. The court also noted that Voodoo had not waived its assertion of general jurisdiction, although its counsel expected Voodoo’s opposition to focus on specific jurisdiction. The court found it difficult to assess whether discovery was needed without the parties’ briefing on legal issues raised by the motion to dismiss. It also stated that Voodoo’s proposed discovery appeared too broad on the current record.
Ruling
The court denied Voodoo’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery without prejudice. It explained that Voodoo could argue that discovery was necessary in the context of opposing SayGames’ motion to dismiss. The order terminated ECF 29. The opinion did not decide SayGames’ motion to dismiss or the underlying copyright claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.