United States District Court, D. Arizona
MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant IQ Formulations, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss and alternative Motion to Transfer (Doc.
21). For the following reasons the motion to dismiss is
granted and the alternative motion to transfer is denied as
Distribution (“Nutrition”) and IQ Formulations
(“IQ”) compete in the exercise supplements
industry. Nutrition is an Arizona limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Phoenix. IQ is a
Florida limited liability company with its principal base of
business in Tamarac, Florida. Nutrition alleges in its First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that two IQ products,
“E.S.P. Extreme” and “Synadrex, ”
contain a chemical known as DMHA. Nutrition alleges that DMHA
is a dangerous substance and that by marketing products
containing DMHA as safe exercise supplements, IQ has violated
the Lanham Act's prohibition of false, misleading, or
deceptive advertising practices, thus injuring Nutrition,
which is forced to compete against products that can be sold
much cheaper because DMHA is inexpensive to produce.
sells its products to a third party that has discretion to
then resell the products nationwide or to other third-party
resellers. IQ also operates a website-accessible in all fifty
states-through which it sells its own products. This site
generates approximately 8% of IQ's annual sales. IQ's
website previously contained a feature that allowed users to
locate third-party stores near them that might sell IQ
products. The store-locator feature listed multiple stores in
Arizona where customers could potentially purchase IQ
products from a third party. Additionally, two Arizona-based
websites sell Synadrex and E.S.P. Extreme. IQ does not,
however, directly sell its products to the stores listed on
its website or the two Arizona websites.
moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), arguing that due process prevents this court's
exercise of jurisdiction over it because it lacks sufficient
minimum contacts with Arizona.
bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.
See Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104,
1108 (9th Cir. 2002). It can meet this burden by alleging
facts that, if true, would support personal jurisdiction over
IQ. See Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th
Cir. 1995). However, Nutrition cannot “simply rest on
the bare allegations of its complaint” if IQ presents
affirmative evidence contradicting the jurisdictional
allegations in the complaint, Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v.
Jobar Int'l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.
1977), but must present proof of personal jurisdiction
through affidavits and declarations. AT&T v.
Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir.
1996). Once the parties have presented affidavits or other
jurisdictional evidence, uncontroverted statements in the
complaint are taken as true, and conflicts between facts
contained in competing affidavits are resolved in
Nutrition's favor. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).
long arm statute extends jurisdiction “to the maximum
extent permitted by the . . . Constitution of the United
States, ” so resolution of the issues here requires
only a Due Process analysis. See Ariz. R. Civ. P.
4.2(a); Davis v. Metro Prod., Inc., 885 F.2d 515,
520 (9th Cir. 1989). The Due Process Clause requires that
nonresident defendants have sufficient “minimum
contacts” with the forum state so that the exercise of
personal jurisdiction “does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945). Due process protects a defendant's “liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a
forum with which he has established no meaningful
‘contacts, ties or relations.'” Omeluk v.
Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 269-70
(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985)). Courts must
determine whether the defendant's contacts with the forum
are sufficient to support either “general” or
“specific” jurisdiction. See Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414
General Personal Jurisdiction
subjected to general personal jurisdiction, the Defendant
must have “affiliations so continuous and systematic as
to render the foreign corporation essentially at home in the
forum State, i.e., comparable to a domestic
enterprise in that state.” Ranza v. Nike,
Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015). IQ contends
that Nutrition has failed to allege facts establishing that
IQ is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Arizona.
Nutrition concedes the point by failing to respond to it. At
any rate, IQ's contacts with Arizona are insufficient to
subject it to general personal jurisdiction.