Gold Value International Textile, Inc. v. Ross Stores, Inc.

Background

Gold Value International Textile, Inc., doing business as “Fiesta Fabric,” alleged that it created and registered a textile design known as Design No. 206-A100293. It alleged that Myth Closing, Inc. and Ross Stores, Inc. created, sold, manufactured, and distributed garments featuring a design identical or substantially similar to Gold Value’s design without authorization. Gold Value asserted copyright-infringement and vicarious or contributory copyright-infringement claims.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. They alternatively moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that Gold Value is a California corporation, Myth is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, and Ross is headquartered in California and incorporated in Delaware.

Personal jurisdiction over Myth

The court analyzed whether Myth had specific personal jurisdiction in California. It found that Gold Value’s allegations showed an intentional act but did not establish that Myth purposefully directed its conduct toward California. The court relied on evidence that Myth’s business was exclusive to New York, that it did not target, advertise, or sell to California, and that it had no California office, telephone number, employees, bank account, license, or registration.

The court also rejected Gold Value’s argument that Myth purposefully directed conduct toward California merely because it contracted with Ross and allegedly knew Ross would sell the garments there. The court held that this was insufficient to show that Myth expressly aimed its conduct at California or knew the resulting harm was likely to be suffered there. It therefore concluded that the California court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Myth.

Venue and transfer

Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Myth, it concluded that the Central District of California was an improper venue as to Myth. Rather than dismissing the action, the court transferred the action against Myth to the Southern District of New York, where Myth could properly be sued and where the opinion states that most events giving rise to the claims occurred.

The court also considered whether to transfer the entire case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that California had limited connections to the operative facts, while New York had stronger connections. The court noted that Myth’s records and likely witnesses were in New York, Ross had a buying office there, and Ross buyers traveled to Myth’s New York office. The court also found that transferring the entire case would promote judicial efficiency and avoid litigation in two districts.

Disposition

The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

The supplied metadata identifies the court as the Southern District of New York and the judge as Katherine Failla, but the opinion text identifies the court as the Central District of California and is signed by Otis D. Wright, II. This summary follows the opinion text and signature.