Weng v. Does 1-35
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Judge Oetken granted Roadget’s jurisdiction motion and denied Weng’s amendment motion without reaching the claim’s merits.
The ruling directly affected Weijie Weng and Roadget Business Pte., Ltd.: the claims against Roadget were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Weng was denied permission to amend his complaint. The opinion does not state a disposition as to the other defendants.
What happened
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Weijie Weng, representing himself, accused Roadget Business Pte., Ltd. and other defendants of selling products that copied his copyrighted designs. Roadget asked the court to dismiss the claims against it because the court lacked authority over Roadget and because the complaint failed to state a valid claim.
The court ruled that Weng had not provided specific facts connecting Roadget to New York. The complaint identified Roadget as an online storefront but did not allege that it conducted business, owned property, committed infringement, or had other sufficient contacts with New York. The court therefore did not consider Roadget’s argument that the complaint failed to state a claim. It also found that allowing Weng to amend the complaint again would be futile because he had not submitted a proposed amended complaint or evidence establishing Roadget’s connection to New York.
Judge James Oetken granted Roadget’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Weng’s motion to amend the complaint. The opinion does not state a ruling on whether the alleged copyright infringement or unfair competition occurred.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Does 1-35 · No. 1:22-cv-07082
- James Oetken
- Sept. 25, 2023
Background
Weijie Weng, proceeding without a lawyer, sued more than sixty defendants, including Roadget Business Pte., Ltd. He alleged that the defendants manufactured, imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit copies of three copyrighted designs that Weng used on baby clothing. The complaint asserted copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and unfair competition under New York law.
Roadget was identified as one of thirty-five anonymous online storefronts allegedly selling infringing products through marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, and AliExpress. Roadget moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Weng also moved for permission to amend his complaint for a second time.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to decide a claim against a particular defendant. The court explained that Weng had to make an initial showing, based on specific facts, that Roadget had sufficient connections with New York.
The court held that the complaint did not allege facts supporting general jurisdiction. Although the complaint described Roadget as a Singapore private company, it did not allege that Roadget was incorporated or maintained its principal place of business in New York.
The court also held that Weng failed to establish specific jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute. The complaint did not specifically allege that Roadget conducted business in New York, contracted to supply goods or services there, committed infringement there, owned New York property, solicited business there, derived substantial revenue from goods used there, or reasonably expected its alleged conduct to affect New York. The court found that identifying Roadget as one of several anonymous online storefronts, combined with broad allegations against all defendants collectively, was insufficient.
The court therefore granted Roadget’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Because personal jurisdiction was lacking, the court did not reach Roadget’s Rule 12(b)(6) argument.
Motion to Amend
The court stated that a self-represented plaintiff generally should receive an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, unless amendment would be futile. Weng had already amended once, but he did not submit a proposed second amended complaint. His filings and exhibits did not allege a connection between Roadget and New York.
The court concluded that another amendment would be futile because the materials submitted did not support a reasonable inference that the court had personal jurisdiction over Roadget. The court denied Weng’s motion to amend.
Disposition
The court granted Roadget Business Pte., Ltd.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Weng’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court did not decide the merits of Weng’s copyright or unfair-competition allegations.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.