Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Texco, Inc. filed this action on April 15, 2026, against Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC, Adasa Ltd Inc., Kotsovos, Inc., New Occasions Brands, LLC, The Dress Outlet, Inc., VIP Fashion, Inc., and Doe defendants. The complaint asserted direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement under the Copyright Act concerning an original two-dimensional garment design identified internally as P-613. Texco alleged ownership of a copyright registration predating the asserted infringement and alleged that defendants created, manufactured, imported, distributed, or sold fabric and garments bearing unauthorized reproductions or derivatives. The court had previously dismissed Does 11 through 30 under the local rule limiting fictitiously named parties.
Defendants moved to dismiss on July 27, 2026, and the court decided the motion without oral argument. They challenged personal jurisdiction over the non-California defendants, contended that the complaint used improper group pleading, and argued that Texco failed to state a copyright claim. Texco maintained that jurisdiction existed at least over Dress Outlet and Mon Cheri and requested targeted discovery concerning the other defendants. The October 16, 2026 civil minutes order addressed jurisdiction and Rule 8 but did not decide the alternative Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The court found general personal jurisdiction over California-based Dress Outlet and specific jurisdiction over Mon Cheri. For Mon Cheri, allegations of willful infringement and evidence of nine California sales generating $2,235.10 supported purposeful direction. The court rejected the argument that the small number or value of sales defeated jurisdiction, explaining that express aiming does not depend on sales volume and that there is no small-percentage-of-sales exception. The claims related directly to those sales because they involved the very products at issue. Mon Cheri also failed to make the required compelling showing that jurisdiction would be unreasonable; its litigation burden did not approach a due-process deprivation, and its forum-interest argument depended on the already-rejected premise that it had not purposefully entered California.
By contrast, defense declarations showed that Adasa, Kotsovos, and VIP had made no California sales of the accused products and that PromGirl had never sold them anywhere. The court therefore found purposeful direction lacking as to those four defendants. It denied jurisdictional discovery because Texco’s request rested on suspicion that the declarations might be inaccurate rather than a sufficient factual basis for believing discovery would uncover jurisdictional facts. The court dismissed Adasa, Kotsovos, VIP, and PromGirl without prejudice and with leave to amend within fourteen days.
The court separately granted Mon Cheri and Dress Outlet’s motion under Rule 8(a)(2) with leave to amend. Texco had defined “Defendants” to include everyone and then alleged that each defendant directly, contributorily, and vicariously infringed, while also describing each as an agent, affiliate, principal, alter ego, or employee of the others. Those allegations left unclear who performed which acts, who faced which claim, and which relationships could support vicarious liability. The court distinguished Briskin v. Shopify because this complaint lacked similarly detailed allegations of a jointly pursued course of conduct and each participant’s role. Rule 8 noncompliance independently supported dismissal with leave to amend, so the Rule 12(b)(6) issues remained undecided. Texco shall file any First Amended Complaint within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- Nine California sales of the accused products were sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction over Mon Cheri despite the modest revenue involved.
- The court denied jurisdictional discovery where Texco offered suspicion and speculation rather than a concrete basis to question the defendants’ jurisdictional declarations.
- Adasa, Kotsovos, VIP, and PromGirl were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, not through a merits determination of the copyright claims.
- Collectively alleging that every defendant committed every form of infringement violated Rule 8 because the complaint did not adequately distinguish each defendant’s conduct and liability.
- The dismissal as to Mon Cheri and Dress Outlet was with leave to amend, and the court expressly declined to reach the alternative Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
Why It Matters
The order separates two distinct pleading and jurisdictional problems in a multi-defendant copyright case. A small volume of forum sales can establish specific jurisdiction when those sales involve the products underlying the claims, but generalized allegations cannot overcome contrary evidence for other defendants or justify discovery based merely on a hunch.
The Rule 8 analysis also makes clear that identifying broad manufacturer and retailer roles in briefing does not cure collective allegations absent from the complaint itself. Texco retains an opportunity to amend, but any revised pleading must provide fair notice of the acts and legal theories attributed to each remaining defendant.