Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Xtreme Plastics, LLC v. G&G Landscape and Hardscape, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

August 16, 2017

Xtreme Plastics, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
G&G Landscape and Hardscape, Inc., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER (RESOLVES DOC. 22)

          JOHN R. ADAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss this matter for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative transfer the matter. Doc. 22. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This matter is hereby DISMISSED.

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

         Plaintiff Xtreme Plastics, LLC (“Xtreme”) filed this action on October 14, 2016 in the Northern District of Ohio against CATCHY, Inc. (“Catchy”) and G&G Landscape and Hardscape, Inc. (“G&G”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Catchy and G&G are engaged in patent infringement by producing and selling their “Catchy Can” refuse container.

         Non-party Incredible Solutions, LLC (“Incredible”) contacted Catchy under the auspices of contracting to sell the “Catchy Can” in Ohio. After almost three months of negotiations, Catchy and Incredible entered into a confidentiality agreement. However, Catchy and Incredible did not form any sales partnership proposal. Following the failed negotiations, Xtreme filed suit alleging that Catchy possesses minimum contacts with Ohio through the attempted transaction of business and expectations that Catchy's products will reach the Northern District of Ohio through the stream of commerce.

         Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and an alternative motion to transfer venue. Defendants' motion claims a lack of sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction and an inconvenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendants have also moved for dismissal of Defendant G&G. Xtreme has opposed the motion and Defendants have replied.

         The Court now resolves the motion.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS

         Federal Circuit law applies for determining jurisdiction in patent law claims. E.g. Avocent v. Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int'l Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir. 1988). “Determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant involves two inquiries: whether a forum state's long-arm statute permits service of process, and whether assertion of jurisdiction would violate due process.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court need not conduct a due process analysis as the matter can be determined solely through analyzing Ohio's long-arm statute.

         The relevant portions of Ohio's long-arm statute that Plaintiff relies on for jurisdiction state that:

A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
(1) Transacting any business in this state;
(2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
(3) Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.