Opinion
99 Civ. 3659 (TPG)
February 3, 2000
OPINION
This is a diversity action brought by a New York company against a California company. Both companies make hair accessories. The controversy arises out of a trade show in Las Vegas held in February 1999. Plaintiff Bijou claims that at that show defendant Mellies falsely accused Bijou of infringing the patent rights of Mellies and threatened to sue customers who purchased Bijou's product. Bijou claims that its product was entirely original and infringes no patent or other rights of Mellies, and that the false statements by Mellies at the trade show deprived Bijou of substantial sales and profits. Bijou's complaint seeks (1) a declaratory judgment as to whether Bijou is infringing upon any copyright or patent of Mellies, and (2) damages estimated to be in excess of $500,000 for "tortious interference with precontractual relations."
Mellies has moved to dismiss the action on several grounds or transfer it to the Central District of California.
Mellies moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion is denied. Bijou is claiming a tort committed in Las Vegas resulting, in part, in loss of business by way of sales to chains having branches in New York. It remains to be seen whether Bijou can prove the tort and the injury so as to ultimately recover. However, there is a sufficient showing for purposes of demonstrating jurisdiction under the relevant New York statute, CPLR § 302(a)(3).
Mellies also seeks dismissal of the claim for declaratory relief on the ground that the claim is not ripe and no actual controversy is alleged. Mellies contends that it has no relevant patent, although a patent application has been filed. However, Mellies did circulate a flier at the trade show warning about infringing the copyrights and trademarks of Mellies, and the attorneys for Mellies wrote Bijou in March 1999 asserting rights under the copyright statute and possible future patent rights after its patent application is approved. Under all the circumstances, the court declines to dismiss Bijou's claims for declaratory relief.
Mellies moves for dismissal of the tort claim for failure to properly allege the jurisdictional amount. There is no merit to this motion. Among other things, the claim is for damages in excess of $500,000. The minimum jurisdictional amount in a diversity case is $75,000.
Finally, Mellies moves to transfer the action to the Central District of California. This motion is denied because the deference which the court must give to the plaintiff's choice of forum is not outweighed by any showing that the balance of convenience of parties and witnesses tips in favor of California. New York is obviously inconvenient for Mellies. But California is inconvenient for Bijou. The court will work with the parties to conserve litigation expenses as much as possible, recognizing that both plaintiff and defendant are relatively small companies.
CONCLUSION
The motions of Mellies are denied — the motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction; the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim on the ground that no actual controversy is presented; the motion to dismiss the tort claim for failure to allege sufficiently the requisite amount in controversy; the motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California.
SO ORDERED.