Boyer Works USA, LLC v. Rubik's Brand Limited
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-07468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Boyer Works v. Rubik’s Brand, Judge Hellerstein granted amendment, granted in part and denied in part dismissal, and required a third complaint.
Boyer Works USA, LLC may continue by filing a third amended complaint, but the court granted dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not decide the merits of Boyer Works’s trademark or antitrust claims, and the defendants must respond to the third amended complaint after it is filed.
What happened
In Boyer Works USA, LLC v. Rubik’s Brand Limited, Boyer Works claimed that defendants used trademark rights to cause Amazon to remove its SpeedRipper Puzzle listing, and also brought antitrust claims. Boyer Works sought permission to file a second amended complaint after defendants moved to dismiss its first amended complaint.
The proposed complaint added allegations, corrected defendant names, and added Spin Master-related defendants. The defendants opposed amendment and argued that the case should be dismissed for improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
The court granted leave to amend. It granted the dismissal motion as to personal jurisdiction, denied it as to subject-matter jurisdiction, improper service, and failure to state a claim, and required Boyer Works to file a third amended complaint. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said he was not deciding the merits of the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Boyer Works USA, LLC v. Rubik's Brand Limited · No. 1:21-cv-07468
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Boyer Works USA, LLC sued Rubik’s Brand Limited, Spin Master Corp., Spin Master Toys UK Limited, and Spin Master, Inc. The claims arose under the Lanham Act and the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Boyer Works alleged that defendants caused Amazon to remove its listing for the Boyer’s SpeedRipper Puzzle because of a claimed trademark violation, preventing sales on Amazon and causing lost profits.
Boyer Works first filed a complaint and then a first amended complaint as a matter of course. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction over all defendants, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim against certain defendants. Boyer Works attempted to file a second amended complaint without defendants’ consent or the court’s permission. The Clerk rejected that filing, and Boyer Works later moved for leave to file it.
Leave to Amend
The court granted Boyer Works’s motion for leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The court found that the delay did not justify denying leave because there was no evidence of bad faith, and Boyer Works had contacted defendants about consent shortly after receiving the motion to dismiss. The court also found no legally relevant undue prejudice because the case was still at an early stage, discovery had not occurred, and allowing the amendment would not significantly delay the case.
The court considered whether the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning unable to survive a motion to dismiss. Rather than decide futility separately, the court granted leave and evaluated the dismissal motion using the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint.
Motion to Dismiss
The court denied as moot the part of the dismissal motion based on improper service because Boyer Works had not served, or attempted to serve, the proposed second amended complaint. The court exercised its discretion to address personal jurisdiction before subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court found that the second amended complaint contained contradictory, redundant, and unintelligible allegations about the defendants and their relevant conduct. As a result, the court found it nearly impossible to determine whether personal jurisdiction existed over some, all, or any of the named defendants. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
The court’s conclusion states that defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted as to lack of personal jurisdiction but denied as to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper service of process, and failure to state a claim for relief. The court said it expressed no opinion on the merits of Boyer Works’s claims, although the alleged conduct suggested a plausible basis for relief.
Disposition
The motion for leave to amend was granted. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on the grounds stated above. Boyer Works was directed to file a third amended complaint by March 1, 2022, and defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 22, 2022. The scheduled argument was canceled, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motions.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.