Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

9T Technologies LLC v. Aircargo Communities, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

December 17, 2014

9T TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba 7L Freight, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
AIRCARGO COMMUNITIES, INC., A California corporation, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff 9T Technologies, LLC ("9T Tech") filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant Aircargo Communities, Inc. ("ACI") is without right or authority to maintain a suit against 9T Tech for the use of what ACI claims to be ACI's proprietary data. ACI now moves to dismiss [17] the claims brought against it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). ACI argues that: (1) this court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to hear this case; (2) 9T Tech's complaint fails to state a claim for declaratory relief; and (3) in the event that I find this court has jurisdiction to hear this case, I should transfer it to a more appropriate venue. After considering both parties' arguments, I have determined that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over ACI. ACI's motion to dismiss is granted.

FACTS

It is undisputed that ACI has had contacts with the state of Oregon. ACI's business operates by selling licenses to its database to customers located in Oregon. The extent of these contacts and whether or not they give rise to personal jurisdiction over ACI is vigorously debated by the parties.

"When a district court acts on a defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) without holding an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss." Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). In determining whether this burden is met, I view the facts and resolve factual disputes in favor of plaintiff. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). Applying this standard, I find the following to be the facts relevant to this case:

• 9T Tech is a competitor, not a customer, of ACI.
• ACI is not licensed to do business in Oregon.
• ACI does not own, lease, or sublease any property in Oregon.
• ACI does not have any bank accounts in Oregon.
• ACI has a significant number of customers in other states that move freight in and through Oregon.
• Two of the twenty local Oregon trucking companies are ACI members.
• ACI operates an interactive website that allows customers in any state to access pricing estimates and zoning data for trucking companies in Oregon, and every other state.
• ACI does not have an agent in Oregon that travels the roadways searching for traffic and construction issues.
• 9T Tech filed this lawsuit in response to a cease and desist letter it received from ACI complaining that 9T Tech had illegally ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.