Waiver of Jurisdiction Under § 1391(c)(2) Deems Litigant to “Reside” in Court’s District Under § 1391(b)(1)

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue because defendant waived its argument that it “resides” in the instant court’s district under § 1391(b)(1). “Defendant did not challenge personal jurisdiction at the hearing for a preliminary injunction or in either of its Rule 12 motions challenging venue. Thus, Defendant waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction and is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. The question, then, is whether a defendant who consents to personal jurisdiction by virtue of waiver is ‘subject to’ that court’s personal jurisdiction for purposes of section 1391(c)(2) and thus ‘resides’ in that court’s district under § 1391(b)(1). . . . Section 1391(c)(2) says nothing about how or when a party must become ‘subject to’ the court’s personal jurisdiction. It states only that a defendant corporation resides in a district if it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Thus, ‘subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question’ means ‘subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.’ However obtained. Whenever obtained. Accordingly, this Court holds . . . that an out-of-state corporation which consents to a court’s personal jurisdiction by waiver is ‘subject to’ that court’s personal jurisdiction for purposes of § 1391(c)(2). Because Defendant consented to this Court’s personal jurisdiction by waiver, it is ‘subject to’ this Court’s personal jurisdiction under section 1391(c)(2) and thus resides in this District under § 1391(b)(1).”

Augusta National, Inc. v. Green Jacket Auctions, Inc., 1-17-cv-00096 (GASD 2018-02-08, Order) (J. Randal Hall)

2018-02-12T12:45:02+00:00February 12th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|