Personal Jurisdiction Appropriate Regarding Third-Party Disputes

The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim and found that the forum selection clause in a registration agreement rendered personal jurisdiction proper. "⁠[I]t is undisputed that the Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendant. However, Plaintiffs assert that this Court may appropriately exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. . . . By contrast, Defendant argues that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction would be inappropriate because Defendant has not purposefully directed activities at Arizona. . . . The Court need not address much of Defendant's Motion, as Defendant signed a forum selection clause when it registered with [non-party], and 'the existence of a forum selection clause in this case renders personal jurisdiction and venue proper in this Court.' . . . Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs cannot be considered third-party beneficiaries to the Registration Agreement is inapposite, as is their argument that Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Defendant ever agreed to this term in the Registration Agreement. At this juncture, Plaintiffs have met their burden to present a prima facie case that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant."

Quant Frank Cout Scott SL et al v. Unknown Party, 2-24-cv-00477 (DAZ Mar. 5, 2025) (Steven P. Logan)