Tag Archives: Flava Works

Forum Selection Clause Creates Jurisdiction

By R. David Donoghue on February 13th, 2013 Posted in Jurisdiction

Flava Works, Inc. v. Rowader, No. 12 C 7181, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2012) (Lefkow, J.).

Judge Lefkow denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss plaintiff Flava Works copyright suit for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Defendant - a California citizen who did not direct any business at Illinois - would not have been subject to general or personal jurisdiction in Illinois. But defendant accepted a valid forum selection clause including Chicago by using Flava Works’ website. While it could be considered an un-negotiable contract of adhesion, defendant could have used another website with a different forum selection clause.

Transfer Warranted Where All Parties are in Florida

By R. David Donoghue on November 21st, 2012 Posted in Jurisdiction

Flava Works, Inc. v. Terry, No. 12 C 1884, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted defendant’s motion to transfer this copyright and trademark infringement case to the M.D. Florida. As an initial matter, defendant did not waive the issue of personal jurisdiction because the answer contested it. While there was at least one witness and some documents in Illinois, defendant, much of plaintiff’s business and many of the documents were in Florida. The Court, therefore, transferred the case to Florida.

Pro Se Answer Must Apply With Rules

By R. David Donoghue on October 3rd, 2012 Posted in Pleading Requirements

Flava Works, Inc. v. Momient, No. 11 C 6306, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur vacated a default judgment entered against defendant based upon defendant’s explanation for his non-appearance. But the Court warned that defendant must revise his proposed answer to:

Remove denials of statements for which defendant lacked information and belief; and
Revised his affirmative defenses down from its list of 21.

Pro Se Answer Must Still Comply With Rules

By R. David Donoghue on September 26th, 2012 Posted in Pleading Requirements

Flava Works, Inc. v. Momient, No. 11 C 6306, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte struck defendants’ pro se answer pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(e) for failure to comply with the Local Rule 5.2(c) font and margin requirements. The Court also identified the following non-exhaustive list of problems with the answer:

In violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5), the defendant denied statements for which it lacked information and belief.
Defendants’ laundry list of 25 affirmative defenses was “unacceptable” for not providing sufficient factual notice.