Automobili Lamborghini S.P.A. v Lamborghini Latino America USA 400 F.Supp.3d 471 (E.D. Va. 2019) Facts Jorge Antonio FernandezGarcia, who lived in South America, told Anthony Crudup (defendants), who lived in the United States, that he had 99-year worldwide licensing agreements to manufacture and sell "lifestyle" merchandise (cigars, t-shirts) with the Lamborghini trademark. The two formed a partnership to sell the merchandise via the website they created together, www.lamborghinigrupo.com. In addition,Garciadirected what merchandise would be offered and how it would appear on the website in exchange for 12% of the profits from sales in the United States. The Lamborghini company (plaintiffs) filed suit against the two for trademark infringement because there was no 99-year agreement.Garciahas moved to dismiss the case because he cannot be forced to come to the United States to defend a lawsuit. Judicial Opinion ELLIS, T.S., Judge It is well-settled that exercising jurisdiction over a defendant is consistent with due process as long as the defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The Fourth Circuit has held that "a single act by a defendant can be sufficient to satisfy the necessary 'quality and nature' of such minimal contacts, although 'casual' or 'isolated' contacts are insufficient to trigger such an obligation." Of particular relevance here, the Fourth Circuit has held that a defendant's Internet activity can serve as a basis for exercising specific personal jurisdiction if the defendant "(1) directs electronic activity into the [forum], (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the [forum], and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the [forum], a potential cause of action cognizable in the [forum]'s courts."ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002). Garciawas the one who held the alleged licensing rights,Garciahad to approve all business decisions relating to the marketing and sale of Lamborghini-marked merchandise on the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website. The two men also agreed on a plan for allocating profits made from selling Lamborghini merchandise in the United States, with 12% of the profits to go toGarcia. Through the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website,Garciaand Crudup made two confirmed sales of Lamborghini-marked cigars into the United States in Virginia and Florida. These facts demonstrate thatGarciahas sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with the limits of due process under theALS Scantest. First,the facts show thatGarcia"direct[ed] electronic activity into the [United States]," in satisfaction of the firstALS Scanelement. It is undisputed that the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website specifically targeted the United States market; indeed, the only confirmed sales made byGarciaand Crudup through the website were to purchasers in the United States. And importantly, the evidence persuasively demonstrates thatGarciapersonally marketed and sold products into the United States through the website. In fact, as Crudup testified,Garciahad the final say with respect to all decisions concerning the marketing and sale of products on the website, as he was the holder of the purported licensing rights. The above facts also show thatGarciawas to receive 12% of the profits from selling Lamborghini-merchandise into the United States through the website. This evidence makes clear thatGarciapersonally directed electronic activity into the United States through his participation in marketing and selling Lamborghini-marked products through the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website, undertaken in concert with Crudup. Garciaargues that his participation in the operation of the website was too limited to connect him to the marketing and sale of products into the United States taking place on the website. In support,GarciacitesHard Candy, LLC v. Hard Candy Fitness, LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the district court ruled that two parent companies' approval rights over a subsidiary company were insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute over the parent companies by imputing the subsidiary's forum contacts under agency principles. That case is inapposite because here it is unnecessary to impute Crudup's contacts toGarciaunder agency principles.Garciapersonally and substantially participated in marketing and selling productsinto the United States through the website; thus, it is clear thatGarciahimself targeted the United States through his electronic activity, as is required under the first element of theALS Scantest. Garciamakes much of the fact that the two products sold byGarciaand Crudup through the website were purchased by private investigators hired by plaintiffs, but this in no way impacts the minimum contacts analysis. "[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.the evidence persuasively demonstrates thatGarciapersonally marketed and sold products into the United States through the website. In fact, as Crudup testified,Garciahad the final say with respect to all decisions concerning the marketing and sale of products on the website, as he was the holder of the purported licensing rights. The above facts also show thatGarciawas to receive 12% of the profits from selling Lamborghini-merchandise into the United States through the website. This evidence makes clear thatGarciapersonally directed electronic activity into the United States through his participation in marketing and selling Lamborghini-marked products through the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website, undertaken in concert with Crudup. Garciaargues that his participation in the operation of the website was too limited to connect him to the marketing and sale of products into the United States taking place on the website. In support,GarciacitesHard Candy, LLC v. Hard Candy Fitness, LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the district court ruled that two parent companies' approval rights over a subsidiary company were insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute over the parent companies by imputing the subsidiary's forum contacts under agency principles. That case is inapposite because here it is unnecessary to impute Crudup's contacts toGarciaunder agency principles.Garciapersonally and substantially participated in marketing and selling productsinto the United States through the website; thus, it is clear thatGarciahimself targeted the United States through his electronic activity, as is required under the first element of theALS Scantest. Garciamakes much of the fact that the two products sold byGarciaand Crudup through the website were purchased by private investigators hired by plaintiffs, but this in no way impacts the minimum contacts analysis. "[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.the evidence persuasively demonstrates thatGarciapersonally marketed and sold products into the United States through the website. In fact, as Crudup testified,Garciahad the final say with respect to all decisions concerning the marketing and sale of products on the website, as he was the holder of the purported licensing rights. The above facts also show thatGarciawas to receive 12% of the profits from selling Lamborghini-merchandise into the United States through the website. This evidence makes clear thatGarciapersonally directed electronic activity into the United States through his participation in marketing and selling Lamborghini-marked products through the www.lamborghinigrupo.com website, undertaken in concert with Crudup. Garciaargues that his participation in the operation of the website was too limited to connect him to the marketing and sale of products into the United States taking place on the website. In support,GarciacitesHard Candy, LLC v. Hard Candy Fitness, LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the district court ruled that two parent companies' approval rights over a subsidiary company were insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute over the parent companies by imputing the subsidiary's forum contacts under agency principles. That case is inapposite because here it is unnecessary to impute Crudup's contacts toGarciaunder agency principles.Garciapersonally and substantially participated in marketing and selling productsinto the United States through the website; thus, it is clear thatGarciahimself targeted the United States through his electronic activity, as is required under the first element of theALS Scantest. Garciamakes much of the fact that the two products sold byGarciaand Crudup through the website were purchased by private investigators hired by plaintiffs, but this in no way impacts the minimum contacts analysis. "[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.lamborghinigrupo.com website, undertaken in concert with Crudup. Garciaargues that his participation in the operation of the website was too limited to connect him to the marketing and sale of products into the United States taking place on the website. In support,GarciacitesHard Candy, LLC v. Hard Candy Fitness, LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the district court ruled that two parent companies' approval rights over a subsidiary company were insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute over the parent companies by imputing the subsidiary's forum contacts under agency principles. That case is inapposite because here it is unnecessary to impute Crudup's contacts toGarciaunder agency principles.Garciapersonally and substantially participated in marketing and selling productsinto the United States through the website; thus, it is clear thatGarciahimself targeted the United States through his electronic activity, as is required under the first element of theALS Scantest. Garciamakes much of the fact that the two products sold byGarciaand Crudup through the website were purchased by private investigators hired by plaintiffs, but this in no way impacts the minimum contacts analysis. "[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.lamborghinigrupo.com website, undertaken in concert with Crudup. Garciaargues that his participation in the operation of the website was too limited to connect him to the marketing and sale of products into the United States taking place on the website. In support,GarciacitesHard Candy, LLC v. Hard Candy Fitness, LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2015), in which the district court ruled that two parent companies' approval rights over a subsidiary company were insufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute over the parent companies by imputing the subsidiary's forum contacts under agency principles. That case is inapposite because here it is unnecessary to impute Crudup's contacts toGarciaunder agency principles.Garciapersonally and substantially participated in marketing and selling productsinto the United States through the website; thus, it is clear thatGarciahimself targeted the United States through his electronic activity, as is required under the first element of theALS Scantest. Garciamakes much of the fact that the two products sold byGarciaand Crudup through the website were purchased by private investigators hired by plaintiffs, but this in no way impacts the minimum contacts analysis. "[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied."[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied."[T]he fact that the purchaser [of the infringing product] happened to be an investigator in plaintiffs' employ does not go to the question whether [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in [the forum]." It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. 

Answering the following: Case Questions  1.  List the activities that Garcia engaged in with regard to the United States.  2.  How much contact with the United States is necessary to allow a U.S. federal court to take jurisdiction over an out-of-the-county defendant?  3.  Explain why Garcia raises the issue of who bought the goods from the website?