In the Black Resources, LLC v. Blitz Design,Inc.

Background

In the Black Resources, LLC, doing business as Black Wall Street, is described as a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas. Marye Dean, its Chief Operating Officer, resides in Texas. Blitz Design, Inc., doing business as Creative Writing Hub, is described as a California corporation with its principal place of business in California.

Black Wall Street contracted with Blitz Design to market its book and arrange promotional events. After alleging that Blitz Design failed to perform its contractual responsibilities, Black Wall Street asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The opinion also states that Blitz Design sought dismissal of all claims brought by Black Wall Street and Dean, but the conclusion specifically addresses dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction means the court’s authority over a defendant. The court held that Blitz Design was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. The contracts called for Blitz Design to arrange a promotional event in Houston, provide stationery and branding, organize live media coverage, and perform other services. The court said these activities showed that Blitz Design deliberately engaged with Texas.

The court also relied on Blitz Design’s interactive website, which allowed visitors to submit contact information and messages, browse and purchase service plans, and interact through social media. Because Blitz Design’s services were substantially online and its marketing targeted nationwide news outlets, the court concluded that its activities supported jurisdiction in Texas. Blitz Design’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied.

Venue and Transfer

The court concluded that venue was proper because Blitz Design was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. It nevertheless transferred the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for convenience and in the interest of justice.

The contract did not select governing law and did not incorporate the website’s terms and conditions. Applying Texas choice-of-law principles, the court concluded that California law governed the contract-related claims. The court emphasized that Blitz Design was a California business, performed most of its services in California, received payments there, and had all its employees, witnesses, and counsel there. The case was therefore transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Motion to Strike

A motion to strike asks the court to remove matter from a pleading when it is legally insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court ruled as follows:

* The words “theft,” “stealing,” “robbed,” and “ripped off” were ordered struck as unsupported legal conclusions and immaterial to the claims. * The phrase “billion dollar company” was ordered struck as prejudicial, unsupported, and immaterial. * Allegations and Exhibit A concerning Blitz Design’s counsel were ordered struck as scandalous and immaterial. * Exhibits A through M, which contained handwritten notes, highlights, and markings, were ordered struck because the markings went beyond the short, plain, factual statement required in a complaint. * Exhibits K and L, transcripts of calls, were ordered struck because they did not identify the speakers or show whether the recordings were made with consent. * The allegations concerning personal jurisdiction and venue were not struck because the court found them material to the case. * The court did not strike the words “negligent” or “negligence.” It said the negligence and gross-negligence claims were causes of action whose sufficiency was more appropriately considered under the motion to dismiss, and that the terms were not prejudicial characterizations.

Disposition

The court denied Blitz Design’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. It ordered the specified words, allegations, and exhibits struck from Black Wall Street’s first amended complaint, and it transferred the case to the Northern District of California. The opinion does not separately state a merits ruling on the underlying contract, tort, or consumer-protection claims.