Spin Master Ltd. v. Alisy
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-00543
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Spin Master v. Alisy, Judge Gardephe postponed a default-judgment hearing and ordered plaintiffs to explain how they will proceed.
Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master, Inc., along with the 73 defendants who had not appeared, were affected by the court’s scheduling order and its request for information about personal jurisdiction.
What happened
Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master, Inc. sued foreign-based entities, claiming trademark and copyright infringement involving toys. Seventy-three defendants had not appeared, and the plaintiffs sought a default judgment against them.
The court questioned whether the complaint showed that New York courts had authority over those defendants. In particular, it found that the complaint did not allege facts showing the defendants had sold allegedly infringing toys to New York consumers. The plaintiffs said third-party service providers would not provide sales information and asked to postpone the hearing indefinitely.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe instead moved the hearing to January 14, 2021, and ordered the plaintiffs to submit a letter by January 12 explaining how they proposed to proceed. The order did not decide the default-judgment request or the infringement claims.
The detailed version
- Spin Master Ltd. v. Alisy · No. 1:18-cv-00543
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master, Inc., described as toy sellers, brought trademark- and copyright-infringement claims against several foreign-based entities. The order states that 73 defendants remained absent from the case. On June 12, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for default judgment against those defendants.
Personal-jurisdiction concern
At a November 19, 2020 hearing, the court questioned whether the complaint pleaded enough facts to establish personal jurisdiction—that is, the court’s legal authority over the defendants. Specifically, the court noted that the complaint did not allege facts showing that the defendants had sold infringing toys to New York consumers. The court directed the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing on whether exercising personal jurisdiction was proper.
The plaintiffs later stated that third-party service providers had refused to provide sales-history information for the defendants. They therefore said they could not add factual allegations to their application. The plaintiffs also asked the court to postpone the December 17 hearing indefinitely.
Order
The court scheduled the hearing for January 14, 2021, at 9:45 a.m., by telephone. It also ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by January 12, a letter explaining how they proposed to proceed. The order warned that the case had been pending for nearly three years and could not remain indefinitely on the court’s docket.
The order addressed scheduling and the personal-jurisdiction issue raised in connection with the default-judgment application. It did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion, and it did not decide the trademark- or copyright-infringement claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.