Wolf Designs, Inc. v. DHR & Co.

Good Law
322 F. Supp. 2d 1065·2004 WL 1427053·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 20, 2004CV 03-4729 SJO, CV 04-0772 SJOCalifornia3,743 words

Opinion

Opinion

Otero, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RICHARDSON’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the court on Defendant David Richardson’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. # 62. Having considered the arguments raised in the briefs, the court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 10, 2004 was taken off-calendar. For the reasons stated below, Defendant David Richardson’s renewed motion is hereby DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Wolf Designs, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) is a California corporation. Defendant DHR & Co. (“DHR”) is a Georgia corporation. Defendant David Richardson (“Richardson”), a resident of Georgia, was and is the President of DHR. Mot. at 3.

The gravamen of the Complaint is that Defendants DHR, Collectives, Inc. (“Collectives”), Steinmart, Inc., Richardson, Shea Robinson, and Michael Meyer participated in an alleged scheme to capitalized on certain trade secrets in order to sell jewelry boxes, which supposedly infringed on Plaintiffs trade dress. Id.

In February 1998, Plaintiff, a seller of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.