Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD

Background

Lindsey Adelman and Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC sued various defendants, seeking an injunction against alleged infringement of registered and unregistered trademarks. Jas Industries moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The opinion describes Jas Industries as a retailer of home goods, including light fixtures, and states that its company is based in the United Kingdom.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise power over a particular defendant. The court applied a two-step analysis: first, whether New York’s long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction; and second, whether exercising jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due-process requirements.

Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1), jurisdiction may exist when a defendant conducts business in New York or contracts to supply goods or services in New York. The court explained that an interactive commercial website can support jurisdiction when the defendant has actually conducted commercial activity in New York. But merely maintaining a website that New York residents can access is not enough.

The plaintiffs submitted an order through Jas Industries’ website to show that a New York resident could place an order. The court found that they had not alleged that any order was actually placed and received by a New York resident. They also did not allege that Jas Industries targeted New York, solicited New York customers, sent mailings to New York residents, entered contracts in New York, or otherwise directed its website toward New York.

Jurisdictional Discovery

The plaintiffs asked for jurisdictional discovery—fact gathering about whether Jas Industries had done business with New York residents. The court stated that such discovery may be allowed when a plaintiff makes an initial showing of a plausible basis for jurisdiction. It found that the plaintiffs had not made that showing and declined to permit jurisdictional discovery.

Disposition

The court held that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Jas Industries. It granted Jas Industries’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.