Tammy Taylor Nails, Inc. v. Viljoen

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-00624 · 2025-04-22 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:06Z · confidence high

The court amended its prior order requesting supplemental briefing on service of process and specific jurisdiction to require the plaintiff to address the recently decided Ninth Circuit en banc case, Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. The court ordered the plaintiff to include this analysis in its supplemental briefing.

What the court decided	The model
Amended the prior Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing to require the plaintiff to address the applicability of Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. to the specific jurisdiction issues. “Accordingly, this Court AMENDS its prior Order and requests Plaintiff, to the degree Plaintiff believes Shopify applies, to address Shopify in its supplemental briefing.”	agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure that the parties brief the law as it currently stands. Given that the Ninth Circuit issued a significant en banc decision on the exact legal issue (specific jurisdiction) one day before this order, it is procedurally appropriate and necessary to request updated briefing. The court is not ruling on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge, but rather ensuring the record is complete for that future determination.

What the court decided

The model

Amended the prior Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing to require the plaintiff to address the applicability of Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. to the specific jurisdiction issues.

“Accordingly, this Court AMENDS its prior Order and requests Plaintiff, to the degree Plaintiff believes Shopify applies, to address Shopify in its supplemental briefing.”

agree with court
The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure that the parties brief the law as it currently stands. Given that the Ninth Circuit issued a significant en banc decision on the exact legal issue (specific jurisdiction) one day before this order, it is procedurally appropriate and necessary to request updated briefing. The court is not ruling on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge, but rather ensuring the record is complete for that future determination.

The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive to update the briefing requirements in light of new, binding precedent. It does not apply the law to the facts to reach a substantive conclusion, but rather ensures the court will have the necessary arguments to apply the new law correctly. The reasoning is direct and responsive to the change in law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

I 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 || TAMMY TAYLOR NAILS, INC., Case No. 24-cv-0624-BAS-DTF 10 Plaintft, | ORDER AMENDING REQUEST 11 V. FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 12 || MELANY VILJOEN, PEET VILJOEN, (ECE No. 21) B TAMMY TAYLOR GLOBAL FRANCHISING, and DOES 1 14 || THROUGH 10, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Last week, this Court issued an Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing regarding 18 ||service of process and specific jurisdiction. Yesterday, an en banc panel of the Ninth 19 || Circuit issued a decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815, 2025 WL 1154075 (9th 20 || Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), which deals with issues of specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court 21 ||} AMENDS its prior Order and requests Plaintiff, to the degree Plaintiff believes Shopify 22 applies, to address Shopify in its supplemental briefing. (ECF No. 21.) 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || DATED: April 22, 2025 (yatta Bahar 26 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 44 United States District Court 28 4.