Opinion

INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC. v. HINOSTROZA

Court
District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed
May 2, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT,

INC. d/b/a INTEGRATED SPORTS

No. 24-cv-09870 (MEF)(JSA)

MEDIA,

Plaintiff, OPINION and ORDER

v.

LIZANDRO DAN HINOSTROZA and EL

RICO SANGUCHOM D’CHALO, LLC,

Defendants.

* * *

For the purposes of this brief Opinion and Order, the Court

assumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of

this case.

* * *

A network1 has sued an LLC2 and its member3 for allegedly

broadcasting a soccer game without a license.

From here, the network is “the Plaintiff,” and the LLC and its

member are, collectively, “the Defendants.”

The Defendants are not alleged to be New Jersey residents. See

Complaint ¶¶ 7–13.

1 Innovative Sports Management, Inc. d/b/a Integrated Sports

Media.

2 El Rico Sanguchom D’Chalo, LLC.

3 Lizandro Dan Hinostroza.

They have not appeared, and the Clerk of Court entered a default

against them.

* * *

The Plaintiff now moves for default judgment as to liability and

damages.

The motion is denied.

* * *

On a motion for default judgment, a court, among other things,

must establish that it has personal jurisdiction. See Baymont

Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Narnarayandev, LLC, 348 F.R.D. 220, 227–

28 (D.N.J. 2024).

The Plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing personal

jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523

U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Here, it has not done so.

* * *

The Plaintiff’s core argument: the Court has personal

jurisdiction over the Defendants because they were properly

served. See Motion for Default Judgment (ECF 9) at 7–8 (citing

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2), (h)(1)(A)).

But service of process, standing alone, is not enough. See Omni

Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987)

(“[B]efore a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a

defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant[.]”);

cf. Nehemiah v. Athletics Cong. of U.S.A., 765 F.2d 42, 47 (3d

Cir. 1985).

* * *

Rather, the question is whether the proposed exercise of

jurisdiction over the non-resident Defendants would fit within

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A).

Under that Rule, “a District Court typically exercises personal

jurisdiction according to the law of the state where it sits.”

O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir.

2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)).

“In New Jersey, that means jurisdiction over a non-New Jersey

defendant reaches as far as the United States Constitution

allows. Under the United States Constitution, there are two

ways to establish personal jurisdiction: general and specific.”

Prestan Prods. LLC v. Innosonian Am., LLC, 2024 WL 278985, at *2

(D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2024).

* * *

As to specific jurisdiction here, there are simply no

allegations here of any connection between the Defendants and

New Jersey. That dooms a specific jurisdiction argument. See

generally Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466

U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984).

* * *

As to general jurisdiction, there is nothing to suggest it is in

play.

The Defendant-LLC, see footnote 2, is a Utah limited liability

company and apparently has its principal place of business in

Utah. See Complaint W971 12-13; see also id., Exhibits 1-2. This

means the Defendant-LLC is not “at home” in New Jersey. See

Carrington Tea Co. LLC v. Pretium Packaging L.L.C., 2024 WL

5170711, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2024) (collecting cases that

apply this “at-home” principle in the LLC context); see

generally Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 136-39 (2014).

The Defendant-Member, see footnote 3, is also alleged to be a

Utah resident. See Complaint 7 7; see also id., Exhibits 1-2.

Therefore, he, too, is not subject to New Jersey general

jurisdiction. See Beychok v. Baffert, 717 F. Supp. 3d 392, 409

n.24 (D.N.J. 2024); see generally Goodyear Dunlop Tires

Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011).

* * *

In light of the above, the Plaintiff has not carried its

personal jurisdiction burden, and the motion for default

Judgment is therefore denied. See Baymont, 348 F.R.D. at 228.

IT IS on this 2nd day of May, 2025, “po

Michael E. Farbiarz, U.S.D.J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.