Kindig-It Design, Inc v. Creative Controls, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00867-JNP-BCW

Table Of Content

• Kindig It Lawsuit: A Closer Look at the Legal Battle
• Q: What lessons can other custom car builders learn from this lawsuit?
• What Do I Do with the Medical Bills I Receive as a Result of a Car Accident?
• Kindig-It Design v. Creative Controls, No. 2:2014cv00867 - Document 124 (D. Utah
• Kindig-It Design, Inc. v. Creative Controls, Inc.
• III. Kindig Has Stated a Claim Under Rule 12 For All Copyright-Related Claims Except for the Fraud Claim

It is unclear, however, why this distinction should make any difference for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Nothing requires that the “purposeful availment of the forum” be for commercial purposes. Indeed, that “purposeful availment” is often for personal, recreational, or other non-commercial purposes. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires either a district judge or a magistrate judge to issue a scheduling order that limits the time to complete discovery. "[A] 'Scheduling Order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.'" Washington v. Arapahoe Cty. Servs., 197 F.R.D. 439, 441 (D. Colo. 2000) (citation omitted).

Kindig It Lawsuit: A Closer Look at the Legal Battle

Creative Controls' first alleged contact with Utah is the website it maintains. This website advertises Creative Controls' products and, at one time, allowed customers to place orders and make purchases. But there has been no evidence presented that the website specifically targets Utah customers. In fact, Creative Controls' president swears that it “does not systematically or otherwise target persons or firms as potential customers in the state of Utah for the sale of any products.” Kindig offers no evidence to contradict this testimony. This document is filed in the new Appellate Case Management System (ACMS), which does not have direct document access.

Q: What lessons can other custom car builders learn from this lawsuit?

See Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp. , 293 F.3d 506, 510–11 (D.C.Cir.2002) (explaining that “our traditional notions of personal jurisdiction” are adaptable to the internet context). Although a company may have a public telephone number that can be dialed from every state, it is not necessarily subject to personal jurisdiction in every state. Rather, personal jurisdiction rising from telephonic contacts can only be based on actual phone calls. Similarly, personal jurisdiction arising from an interactive website should only be based on actual use of the site by forum residents. The patent-related claims in this case are claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13 and 14. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 are claims for patent infringement or inducement of infringement.

What Do I Do with the Medical Bills I Receive as a Result of a Car Accident?

In this section, we’ll examine the events that triggered the lawsuit and the parties involved. Additionally, we’ll uncover the specific allegations and the legal basis for the dispute. However, amidst the acclaim, the company faced legal challenges that sparked controversy and intrigue.

ACMS Document URL Unavailable

The patent claims and the claim for business disparagement are factually unrelated to the Copyright-Related Claims. Indeed, Kindig has not even suggested that Creative Controls' copying of the photographs relates in any way to the patent claims or the claim for business disparagement. Accordingly, the court finds that there is no pendent personal jurisdiction in this case. Even were that doctrine to potentially apply, the court would exercise its discretion and not retain the claims because they factually unrelated to the claims over which the court has specific personal jurisdiction.

Creative Controls has not, at this stage, presented the court with sufficient argument to allow the court to conclude that any of the copyrights are invalid. If, however, through the discovery process, Creative Controls concludes that specific copyrights are invalid, it may bring a motion for summary judgment. Creative Controls argues that Kindig's Complaint does not adequately identify the copyrighted materials owned by Kindig. C. The court cannot exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for the claims over which no specific personal jurisdiction exists. This court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for all claims arising out of that contact so long as doing so does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Kindig-It Design, Inc. v. Creative Controls, Inc.

This is an “untenable result” that exposes the primary flaw in the Zippo test. The lack of any specific instances of Creative Controls' physical or digital contacts with Utah demonstrates why the Zippo sliding scale should not replace traditional personal jurisdiction analysis. The Zippo test effectively removes geographical limitations on personal jurisdiction over entities that have interactive websites. And because the number of entities that have interactive websites continues to grow exponentially, application of the Zippo framework would essentially eliminate the traditional geographic limitations on personal jurisdiction.

Co. , 618 F.3d at 1159 (quoting TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Grp. Ltd. , 488 F.3d 1282, 1286 (10th Cir.2007) ); Elecs. Any factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Shrader , 633 F.3d at 1239 ; Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Med.Prods., Inc. , 149 F.3d 1382, 1383 n.

Q: Has Kindig It Design implemented any changes in response to the lawsuit?

C1 Corvette-Inspired Kingdig-It CF1 Roadster Shown At The 2021 SEMA Show - GM Authority

C1 Corvette-Inspired Kingdig-It CF1 Roadster Shown At The 2021 SEMA Show.

Posted: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:00:00 GMT [source]

In any legal dispute, there are multiple sides to the story. The client filing the lawsuit alleged that Kindig-It Design failed to deliver the promised modifications, leading to disappointment and financial loss. On the other hand, Kindig-It Design contended that they had followed the agreed-upon specifications and completed the project to the best of their abilities.

Hand-built V12-powered 1953 Corvette takes 2024 Ridler - Driving

Hand-built V12-powered 1953 Corvette takes 2024 Ridler.

Posted: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 08:00:00 GMT [source]

Accordingly, the court must determine which, if any, of Kindig's claims arise out of Creative Controls' contact with the Utah forum. Accordingly, and for the same reasons as those articulated in the previous section, the court again finds Zippo to be unpersuasive. The court believes this conclusion is justified under Tenth Circuit law. Here again, the traditional test of minimum contacts and purposeful availment controls.

Firstly, the court stated that Kindig-It had adequately proved that Creative Controls had really communicated with clients in Utah. However, despite this, the court said the Kindig team could not prove that Creative Controls had violated any of their goods. Therefore, the court remarked that there was no case for copyright issues. As per Creative Controls, they delivered the product to their Utah client after receiving an order request on their website.

Co. v. Worthington , 344 P.3d 156, 159 (Utah App.2015) (explaining that an element of a fraud claim is that the complaining party relied upon the fraudulent misrepresentation). Because Kindig has failed to allege that it acted in reliance on the allegedly fraudulent photographs contained on Creative Controls' website, Kindig has failed to adequately state a claim for fraud. Creative Controls' final argument is that Kindig's claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

However, a court will not accept as true “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. Thus, a claim must be dismissed where the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to make the claim “plausible on its face.” See Bell Atl. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 )). As explained above, however, the court dismisses the patent-related claims but finds that there is specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for the Copyright-Related Claims.

The court agrees that, taking this allegation as true, Creative Controls' actions constitute a purposeful availment of the Utah forum. Creative Controls allegedly copied photographs from a Utah company's website and used the copied materials to creative derivative works. Given that contact, it is both foreseeable and reasonable that Creative Controls would be haled into a Utah court. Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc. , 326 F.3d 1194, 1201 (Fed.Cir.2003) (discussing when Federal Circuit law or regional circuit law applies to personal jurisdiction analysis). (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) ).

However, the experience also presented opportunities for growth and introspection. Given the popularity of Kindig-It Design and the intrigue of a lawsuit, media outlets quickly picked up on the story. The case garnered significant attention, with news articles, online forums, and social media discussions analyzing and speculating about the details. The public, too, formed their opinions, often based on incomplete information and personal biases. Kindig-It Design is a renowned automotive customization shop founded by Dave Kindig. Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, the company has gained international recognition for its exceptional craftsmanship and innovative designs.