Table Of Content
- How Do I Choose the Best Lawyer to Litigate My Legal Case?
- What is a UK Settlement Visa?
- Q: Has Kindig It Design implemented any changes in response to the lawsuit?
- Q: What lessons can other custom car builders learn from this lawsuit?
- Kindig-It Design v. Creative Controls
- I. The Court May Exercise Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Creative Controls for Only Some of Kindig's Claims

For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle , 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2003) (explaining the burden). But where, as here, a motion to dismiss is made with no request for an evidentiary hearing, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” Emp'rs Mut. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc. , 618 F.3d 1153, 1159 (10th Cir.2010) (quoting AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distribution Ltd. , 514 F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (10th Cir.2008) ); Elecs. For Imaging , 340 F.3d at 1349 (describing an identical standard under Federal Circuit law). “The plaintiff may carry this burden ‘by demonstrating, via affidavit or other written materials, facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.’ ” Emp'rs Mut.
How Do I Choose the Best Lawyer to Litigate My Legal Case?
Kindig-it Design Unveils the '53 Corvette Inspired Kindig CF1! - MotorTrend
Kindig-it Design Unveils the '53 Corvette Inspired Kindig CF1!.
Posted: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:00:00 GMT [source]
This is an “untenable result” that exposes the primary flaw in the Zippo test. The lack of any specific instances of Creative Controls' physical or digital contacts with Utah demonstrates why the Zippo sliding scale should not replace traditional personal jurisdiction analysis. The Zippo test effectively removes geographical limitations on personal jurisdiction over entities that have interactive websites. And because the number of entities that have interactive websites continues to grow exponentially, application of the Zippo framework would essentially eliminate the traditional geographic limitations on personal jurisdiction.
What is a UK Settlement Visa?
Moreover, the Utah court also determined that they could use Creative Controls’ established website as a case for personal jurisdiction. The court ruled in favour of both companies on varying counts. To begin with, they found that Kindig-it Designs had sufficiently proved that Creative Controls had indeed been in contact with clientele based in Utah. In response to this, Creative Controls countersued Kindig-it, claiming that the Utah court they were summoned to had no jurisdiction.
Q: Has Kindig It Design implemented any changes in response to the lawsuit?
Co. , 618 F.3d at 1159 (quoting TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Grp. Ltd. , 488 F.3d 1282, 1286 (10th Cir.2007) ); Elecs. Any factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Shrader , 633 F.3d at 1239 ; Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Med.Prods., Inc. , 149 F.3d 1382, 1383 n.
Kindig It Design, Inc. v. Creative Controls, Inc.
However, a court will not accept as true “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. Thus, a claim must be dismissed where the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to make the claim “plausible on its face.” See Bell Atl. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 )). As explained above, however, the court dismisses the patent-related claims but finds that there is specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for the Copyright-Related Claims.
Q: What lessons can other custom car builders learn from this lawsuit?
In any legal dispute, there are multiple sides to the story. The client filing the lawsuit alleged that Kindig-It Design failed to deliver the promised modifications, leading to disappointment and financial loss. On the other hand, Kindig-It Design contended that they had followed the agreed-upon specifications and completed the project to the best of their abilities.
Co. v. Worthington , 344 P.3d 156, 159 (Utah App.2015) (explaining that an element of a fraud claim is that the complaining party relied upon the fraudulent misrepresentation). Because Kindig has failed to allege that it acted in reliance on the allegedly fraudulent photographs contained on Creative Controls' website, Kindig has failed to adequately state a claim for fraud. Creative Controls' final argument is that Kindig's claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

Creative Controls has not, at this stage, presented the court with sufficient argument to allow the court to conclude that any of the copyrights are invalid. If, however, through the discovery process, Creative Controls concludes that specific copyrights are invalid, it may bring a motion for summary judgment. Creative Controls argues that Kindig's Complaint does not adequately identify the copyrighted materials owned by Kindig. C. The court cannot exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for the claims over which no specific personal jurisdiction exists. This court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for all claims arising out of that contact so long as doing so does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Accordingly, the court must determine which, if any, of Kindig's claims arise out of Creative Controls' contact with the Utah forum. Accordingly, and for the same reasons as those articulated in the previous section, the court again finds Zippo to be unpersuasive. The court believes this conclusion is justified under Tenth Circuit law. Here again, the traditional test of minimum contacts and purposeful availment controls.
It is unclear, however, why this distinction should make any difference for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Nothing requires that the “purposeful availment of the forum” be for commercial purposes. Indeed, that “purposeful availment” is often for personal, recreational, or other non-commercial purposes. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires either a district judge or a magistrate judge to issue a scheduling order that limits the time to complete discovery. "[A] 'Scheduling Order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.'" Washington v. Arapahoe Cty. Servs., 197 F.R.D. 439, 441 (D. Colo. 2000) (citation omitted).
See Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp. , 293 F.3d 506, 510–11 (D.C.Cir.2002) (explaining that “our traditional notions of personal jurisdiction” are adaptable to the internet context). Although a company may have a public telephone number that can be dialed from every state, it is not necessarily subject to personal jurisdiction in every state. Rather, personal jurisdiction rising from telephonic contacts can only be based on actual phone calls. Similarly, personal jurisdiction arising from an interactive website should only be based on actual use of the site by forum residents. The patent-related claims in this case are claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13 and 14. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 are claims for patent infringement or inducement of infringement.
In this section, we’ll examine the events that triggered the lawsuit and the parties involved. Additionally, we’ll uncover the specific allegations and the legal basis for the dispute. However, amidst the acclaim, the company faced legal challenges that sparked controversy and intrigue.
The magistrate judge entered the first scheduling order in this case on March 4, 2016. The order required fact discovery to be completed by November 18, 2016. A default certificate was entered against Creative Controls on May 19, 2016. The magistrate judge entered a revised scheduling order on July 27, 2016. The revised order included a deadline to serve written discovery before claim construction on February 7, 2016. The Kindig-It Design lawsuit is one of several lawsuits that have been filed against automotive parts and accessories companies in recent years.