Plout v. Ren Shiju et al

ORDER DENYING 52 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Misjoinder. In the 52 Motion, Defendants COFOLIFE.COM, FUNIYA.COM, and LACEWAVE.COM (hereafter, "Moving Defendants") request that this Court vacate its 6/26/2026 Order granting Plaintiffs 27 motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 35. Moving Defendants further request that this Court dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction and misjoinder. Plaintiff responds that 1) the Motion does not comply with this Court's Order governing Rule 12(b) motions in this case, ECF No. 10; 2) the Complaint's allegation that Defendants sold infringing products to consumers in Pennsylvania satisfies personal jurisdiction; and 3) joinder is proper in light of Defendants' coordination and, even if it was not, dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the 52 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction and to Dismiss the Complaint. As a threshold matter, Moving Defendants failed to comply with this Court's 10 Order, which requires the parties to meet and confer prior to filing a 12(b) motion and further requires any motion to dismiss be accompanied by a certificate of conferral indicating the parties conferred on a good-faith basis, and identifying pleading deficiencies that may be cured by amendment. As stated in the order, [m]otions to dismiss that do not contain the required certification will be summarily denied." Here, the 52 Motion was not accompanied by a certificate of conferral. Additionally, Plaintiff avers that Moving Defendants did not seek to confer prior to filing their 52 Motion. Thus, the 52 Motion is deficient. The 52 Motion also fails on the merits. Beginning with the request to dissolve the preliminary injunction, the Court may, in its discretion, dissolve a preliminary injunction where "the movant has made a showing that changed circumstances warrant the discontinuation of the order." Sprint Commc'ns Co. L.P. v. CAT Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 335 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Township of Franklin Sewerage Auth. v. Middlesex County Utils. Auth., 787 F.2d 117, 121 (3d Cir.1986)). Here, Moving Defendants have made no such showing of changed circumstances and, accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction. The Court will likewise deny Moving Defendants' request to dismiss the complaint. As to Moving Defendants' personal jurisdiction argument, Moving Defendants rely on the Declaration of Xinyu Zou, Moving Defendants general manager, arguing that Moving Defendants never completed sales of infringing products in Pennsylvania. ECF Nos. 52-53. Plaintiff responds that the information contained in Mr. Zou's declaration is contradictory, and that the Complaint establishes this Court's personal jurisdiction by alleging that Moving Defendants purposefully directed its conduct at Pennsylvania, including by selling infringing products to consumers in Pennsylvania. See ECF No. 58 at 3-5. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true a complaint's factual allegations and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). While a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction in response to a 12(b) motion, "[t]he plaintiff need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, which may be established by showing sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state." Vound Colorado, Ltd. v. E-Hounds, Inc., No. CV 21-849-LPS-SRF, 2022 WL 684834, at *2 n.3 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2022) (citing O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007) and Mellon Bank (E) PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "purposefully directed and expressly aimed its tortious activities" at Pennsylvania by, inter alia, selling products bearing Plaintiff's copyrighted designs to consumers within Pennsylvania not affiliated in any way with Plaintiff[.]" ECF No. 1 para. 3. Applying the standard set forth above, such allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, having found that Plaintiff has sufficiently established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, will deny Moving Defendants request for jurisdictional discovery. See Wright v. New Jersey/Dep't of Educ., 115 F. Supp. 3d 490, 497 (D.N.J. 2015) ("The court has wide discretion in resolving jurisdictional factual disputes and is under no obligation to grant discovery[.]"). Moving Defendants also seek to dismiss the Complaint for misjoinder, asserting that they are unrelated companies acting without coordination and therefore joinder is improper. See ECF No. 52 at 8. In response, Plaintiff argues that joinder of Moving Defendants is proper under Rule 20 because "Defendants have cooperated, communicated, shared information, and coordinated their efforts in order to create an infringing marketplace[.]" ECF No. 59 at 14-15; ECF No. 1 para. 5. The Court first notes that misjoinder is not a ground for dismissing an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Upon a finding of misjoinder, the proper remedy would be severance. Doggie Dental, Inc. v. Cdoffice, No. 2:21-CV-00271, 2021 WL 5411432, at *2-5 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2021) (Hornak, J.). Accordingly, the question before the Court is whether Moving Defendants were properly joined under Rule 20, or whether they should be severed pursuant to Rule 21. Multiple defendants may be joined in one action if: (1) the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there is at least one question of law or fact common to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In analyzing a motion to dismiss under Rule 20, courts assume all factual allegations made in the complaint are true, and view those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sanders v. Rose, 576 F. App'x 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2014) ("Accepting [the] allegations [from the complaint] as true, and drawing from them all reasonable inferences, we find a sufficient connection among the counts."); See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008); Doggie Dental, No. 2:21-CV-00271, 2021 WL 5411432, at *2-5. The Third Circuit has held that claims joined against multiple defendants in a single action must bear a "logical relationship to one another" and feature "the same factual issues [or] the same factual and legal issues." Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Aviation Off. of Am., Inc., 292 F.3d 384, 390 (3d Cir. 2002). Applying these principles, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 20(a)(2). As stated above, Plaintiff avers that Defendants "have cooperated, communicated, shared information, and coordinated their efforts" to infringe Plaintiff's products. See ECF No. 1 para. 5. Taking these allegations as true, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated the "logical relationship" required to meet the common transaction or occurrence requirement under Rule 20 and the governing Third Circuit Precedent. See Doggie Dental, No. 2:21-CV-00271, 2021 WL 5411432, at *5 (citing Transamerica, 292 F.3d at 390). Exercising its discretion, the Court concludes that joinder of Defendants in this case is proper. Lester v. Rosato, No. 3:CV-14-1046, 2014 WL 3421072, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2014) ("Courts have broad discretion in applying Rule 20"). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 52 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Misjoinder is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/14/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

ORDER re 52 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction and to Dismiss the Complaint. In the 52 Motion, certain Defendants request that this Court vacate its Order granting preliminary injunction, ECF No. 35, and dismiss the Complaint. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff respond to the 52 Motion by 7/28/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/21/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

Minute Entry for Order to Show Cause Hearing held on 6/26/2026 before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. (Court Reporter: Sharon Siatkowski) (drc) (Entered: 06/26/2026)