Liberty Media Holdings, Llc v. Eric Henson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-55574 · 2013-04-23 · Unpublished

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric HENSON, Defendant-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Paul J. Watford

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a No. 12-55574 California corporation, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00652-MMA- Plaintiff - Appellant, BLM v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC HENSON, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2013** Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC (“Liberty”) appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing its copyright infringement action for lack of personal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

The district court improperly dismissed Liberty’s action because it did not first give Liberty notice and an opportunity to assert facts to support the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Henson. See Tuli v. Republic of Iraq (In re Tuli), 172 F.3d 707, 712-13 (9th Cir. 1999) (court erred in failing to give plaintiff notice and an opportunity to present facts supporting personal jurisdiction before declining to enter a default judgment on the ground that such a showing had not been made).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing Liberty’s action and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 12-55574