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.

Boltex Manufacturing Company, L.P. v. Galperti, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

May 30, 2018

Boltex Manufacturing Company, LP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Galperti, Inc., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          GRAY H. MILLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the court are defendant Officine Nicola Galperti e Figlio S.p.A.'s (“ONG”) motions to: (1) reconsider; (2) stay discovery; and, alternatively, (3) certify this order for interlocutory appeal. Dkt. 81. Plaintiffs Boltex Manufacturing Company, L.P. (“Boltex”) and Weldbend Corporation (“Weldbend”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) responded. Dkt. 97. ONG replied. Dkt. 98. Having considered the motions, response, reply, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motions should be DENIED.

         I. Background

         ONG asks the court to reconsider its finding of specific jurisdiction.[1] Dkt. 81, Dkt. 75 (denying ONG's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 19) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)). Specifically, ONG argues that: (1) its email responses to Texas customers cannot constitute commercial advertising under the Lanham Act; (2) the Plaintiffs' evidence did not support a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction; and (3) the court did not analyze purposeful availment. Dkt. 81 at 9. ONG also asks the court to stay discovery pending resolution of the instant motion. Id. Alternatively, ONG asks the court to certify this order for interlocutory appeal if it denies the instant motion or grants it and still finds that personal jurisdiction exists. Id.

         II. Analysis

         A. Motion to reconsider

         1. ONG's email responses

         Once again, ONG insists that the court cannot analyze specific jurisdiction without deciding whether its email responses to Texas customers count as commercial advertising under the Lanham Act.[2] Compare Dkt. 81 at 22-28, with Dkt. 59 at 10. Once again, the court disagrees. See Dkt. 75 at 6. The court will not superimpose the Rule 12(b)(6) standard onto ONG's Rule 12(b)(2) motion. Thus, this argument cannot support a grant of the instant motion.

         2. Plaintiffs' evidence

         According to ONG, Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction because the latter relied on Andrea Galperti's deposition. Dkt. 81 at 9-10, 13. Even though ONG cited to its CEO's affidavit in its own 12(b)(2) motion, ONG asserts that because “Plaintiffs chose to depose Mr. Galperti in his individual capacity, [and] not as a corporate representative . . . his testimony does not bind ONG nor does it represent ONG's position on a topic.” Id. at 13; see also Dkt. 60 at 4-5, 9-10. ONG also asserts that Mr. Galperti “spoke only in generalities and hypotheticals.” Dkt. 81 at 14.

         Attacking Mr. Galperti's capacity does not impact whether Plaintiffs met their burden. Nor does any divergence between Mr. Galperti's affidavit and his testimony because the court must resolve factual differences in the Plaintiffs' favor. Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008) (“conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor for purposes of determining whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists”) (internal citation omitted; emphasis in original). ONG failed to show that Plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of specific jurisdiction. Therefore, this ground cannot support a grant of the instant motion.

         3. Purposeful availment

         ONG argues that the court analyzed specific jurisdiction without addressing the purposeful availment prong. Dkt. 81 at 9, 16-22. ONG argues that its email responses cannot count under that prong because it did not initiate the communications to Texas customers. Id. at 18 (“Responding to an email RFQ inquiry into whether the flanges can be normalized without ONG initiating the communication or reaching into the Texas forum does not provide [a] fair warning . . . that the activity may subject [it] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.”).

         Plaintiffs argue that ONG waived a purposeful availment challenge by only addressing the nexus prong. Dkt. 97 at 14. Plaintiffs also argue that ONG's emails count toward purposeful availment because ONG willingly responded to Texas customers via email, and because those communications contained the allegedly false representations. Id. at 9. Both parties cite the same case, Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center, ...


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.