From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Future Motion, INC. v. JW Batteries LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 14, 2021
21-cv-06771-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-06771-EMC

12-14-2021

FUTURE MOTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. JW BATTERIES LLC, Defendant.


Docket Nos. 16, 24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY, AND DEFERRING RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge

Plaintiff Future Motion, Inc. is a company that markets and sells “the ONEWHEEL® line of self-balancing electronically motorized skateboards, along with related accessories, replacement parts, and merchandise.” Compl. ¶ 9. The skateboards have processors and software incorporated into them that control various functions and safety features - e.g., “monitoring the status of the skateboard and causing it to slow down or stop if it approaches an unsafe operating condition.” Compl. ¶ 11. Future Motion has filed suit against Defendant JW Batteries LLC because the latter sells a computer processor chip that is allegedly intended to circumvent the safety and technological measures implemented by Future Motion for its skateboards. See Compl. ¶ 20. Currently pending before the Court are two motions: (1) JW's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue and (2) Future Motion's motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing on the two motions.

The Court hereby GRANTS Future's motion for leave to take discovery. See Laub v. United States DOI, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[a] district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”); see also Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. 09-cv-06038-CRB (DMR), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97657 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010) (noting that “a plaintiff need not make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction before it can obtain jurisdictional discovery[;] [r]ather, a plaintiff must present a ‘colorable basis' for jurisdiction, or ‘some evidence' constituting a lesser showing than a prima facie case”). In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that “[t]he question of jurisdiction in the Internet age is not well settled” and indicated that jurisdictional discovery should be permitted where the record is insufficiently developed and further discovery might demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction. Good Job Games Bilism Yazilim Ve Pazarlama A.S. v. SayGames, LLC, No. 2016123, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36507, at *2-3 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021). The Court finds jurisdictional discovery is appropriate here.

Because the Court is giving Future Motion the opportunity to take jurisdictional discovery, the Court DEFERS ruling on JW's motion to dismiss. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding (1) a timeframe for Future Motion to take jurisdictional discovery and (2) a timeframe for the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction, once jurisdictional discovery is complete. The parties shall file a stipulation on these matters within two weeks of the date of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 24. The ruling on Docket No. 16 is deferred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Future Motion, INC. v. JW Batteries LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 14, 2021
21-cv-06771-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021)
Case details for

Future Motion, INC. v. JW Batteries LLC

Case Details

Full title:FUTURE MOTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. JW BATTERIES LLC, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 14, 2021

Citations

21-cv-06771-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021)