FPK Services LLC v. Does

Background

FPK Services LLC d/b/a HealthLabs.com and the other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against John Does 1–10 and renewed an ex parte motion—meaning a motion made without the opposing party’s participation at that stage—for permission to take expedited discovery. The requested discovery apparently concerned identifying the unnamed defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that Doe 1 sent harassing text messages after accessing HealthLabs.com’s computers, servers, or data-storage facilities and obtaining cellular phone numbers. They also alleged that Doe 1 used TextNow, an internet-based messaging service, whose computers and servers were alleged to be located in the district.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court analyzed whether California could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the unnamed defendant. Specific personal jurisdiction requires a connection between the defendant’s forum-related conduct and the claims, along with purposeful direction or purposeful availment and an exercise of jurisdiction consistent with fair play and substantial justice.

The court held that the alleged access to HealthLabs.com’s servers did not, on its face, show that the defendant expressly aimed conduct at California. The court reasoned that the servers’ alleged California location was only a random or fortuitous connection to the alleged conduct. It also held that using a third-party internet service headquartered in California did not, by itself, establish the defendant’s minimum contacts with California. The plaintiffs offered no authority for either theory, and the court found that they had failed to allege a basis for jurisdiction.

The court additionally noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 permits a subpoena to be served anywhere in the United States. If enforcement is required outside the issuing court’s jurisdiction, the relevant enforcement proceeding may be brought in the court where compliance is required.

Rulings and Effect

The court denied the renewed motion for expedited discovery. It ordered the plaintiffs—FPK Services LLC d/b/a HealthLabs.com, Fiyyaz Pirani, Mahvish Linares, and Travis Davis—to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were directed to respond by October 23, 2020. The court stated that the amended complaint appeared subject to dismissal, but this order did not itself dismiss the action. The court set October 30, 2020, as a compliance-date placeholder and said no appearance would be required then unless it later determined that a hearing was necessary.