Future Motion, Inc. v. JW Batteries LLC
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-06771
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Future Motion v. JW Batteries, Judge Chen granted jurisdictional discovery and deferred JW Batteries’ motion to dismiss over jurisdiction and venue.
Future Motion, Inc. received permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery; JW Batteries LLC’s motion to dismiss remains unresolved.
What happened
Future Motion, Inc. sued JW Batteries LLC, alleging that JW Batteries sells a processor chip intended to circumvent safety and technological measures in Future Motion’s ONEWHEEL skateboards. JW Batteries asked the court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue.
Future Motion asked for permission to gather discovery about whether the court has jurisdiction over JW Batteries. The court found that discovery could produce facts supporting jurisdiction and granted Future Motion’s request.
Judge Edward M. Chen deferred ruling on JW Batteries’ motion to dismiss until after the jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and file a timetable within two weeks.
The detailed version
- Future Motion, Inc. v. JW Batteries LLC · No. 3:21-cv-06771
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 14, 2021
Background
Future Motion, Inc. markets and sells ONEWHEEL self-balancing electric skateboards and related products. The skateboards contain processors and software that control functions and safety features, including monitoring the skateboard and slowing or stopping it in unsafe conditions. Future Motion sued JW Batteries LLC, alleging that JW Batteries sells a computer processor chip intended to circumvent those safety and technological measures.
Two motions were pending: JW Batteries’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue, and Future Motion’s motion for permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The court decided the motions without oral argument and vacated the hearing.
Court’s ruling
The court granted Future Motion’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. It explained that a plaintiff need not first establish a full preliminary case for personal jurisdiction; a colorable basis or some evidence supporting jurisdiction can be enough to obtain discovery. The court also relied on the Ninth Circuit’s observation that jurisdiction over internet-related activity is not well settled and that discovery may be appropriate when the existing record is insufficient.
Because Future Motion was allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery, the court deferred ruling on JW Batteries’ motion to dismiss. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a schedule for the discovery and for supplemental briefs on personal jurisdiction, then file a stipulation addressing those matters within two weeks of the order. The order disposed of Docket No. 24, while the ruling on Docket No. 16 was deferred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.