Image Comics, Inc., and Rick Remender v. Mark-Robert Bluemel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 11 IMAGE COMICS, INC., and RICK CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01399-TL REMENDER, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 13 v. JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 14 MARK-ROBERT BLUEMEL, 15 Defendant.

17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery. Dkt.

18 No. 20. Having considered the motion, Defendant’s opposition (Dt. No. 23), Plaintiffs’ reply (Dkt. No. 26), and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion.

21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On July 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, seeking (1) a declaratory judgment regarding the use of Defendant’s trademark, registered in 2008, for the mark THE GROMMETS; and (2) the cancellation of that trademark. Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint) at 1, 8. In 2007 and 2014, Defendant, an attorney and author, published two “middle-grade novel[s]” with a focus on three young surfers and skateboarders, dubbed “Grommets” by older surfers. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. Since 2024, Plaintiff Image Comics, Inc., a “comic book and graphic novel publisher” (id. ¶ 9), and Plaintiff Rick Remender, a writer of comics (id. ¶ 12), have published a comic-book and graphic-novel series called Grommets. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs’ Grommets series “focuses on two outcast best friends who find a home in skateboard culture and punk rock.” Id. ¶ 15. The series title springs from skater slang, where a “grommet” is a term for a young, up-and-coming skater or surfer. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff Image Comics has published seven issues of Grommets, with an eighth planned for release in July 2025. Id. ¶ 17.

10 On September 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Dkt. No. 12. Three days later, on September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint did not revise any allegations related to the jurisdiction of the Court over Defendant. See Dkt. No. 26 at 1 n.1; compare Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4, with Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 5.

15 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs responded to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 21.

16 In their response, Plaintiffs requested the Court deny Defendant’s motion or, in the alternative, grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. No. 20), which they filed the same day. Dkt. No. 21 at 15. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery requests that the Court order Defendant to produce documents related to three specific categories: (1) the sale of Defendant’s physical books from his Amazon.com listings and all other websites or brick-and- mortar locations; (2) the Kindle downloads of the books available from Defendant’s Amazon.com listings; and (3) Defendant’s publishing agreement with Amazon.com. See Dkt.

2 No. 20 at 1.1 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Jurisdictional discovery “may be appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977)). “Refusal to grant jurisdictional discovery is appropriate when ‘it is clear that further discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction[.]’” Constr. Loan Servs. LLC v. VBC Tracy LLC, No. C25-5347, 2025 WL 1756782, at *4 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)).

13 III. DISCUSSION 14 As is clear from Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ response, the question of this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant is hotly contested. But in order to adjudicate Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court will need to analyze whether it has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. This inquiry involves a three-part test: (1) whether the non-resident defendant purposefully directed their activities or consummated some transaction with the forum or resident;2 (2) whether the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial On January 13, 2026, Defendant submitted a Request for Judicial Notice, a Declaration, and three documents that he asserts the Court should take judicial notice of. Dkt. Nos. 32, 32-1. Defendant only asserts that these submissions are relevant to his motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 32 at 1. Therefore, the Court does not consider them for purposes of this instant motion for jurisdictional discovery.

2 Claims involving trademarks sound in tort and are therefore analyzed under a purposeful-direction rather than purposeful-availment test. See Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2023).

1 justice—i.e., it must be reasonable. Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2023).

3 Defendant asserts that he has no purposeful contacts with Washington, and that Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 23 at 1. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs assert the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant targets consumers in Washington by selling and distributing his book through web sales on Amazon.com, and because Defendant entered a contract with Amazon that requires consent to Washington as the venue in the event of litigation arising out of any book sales. Dkt.

9 No. 13 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 20 at 2. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant has used the Amazon.com store webpage for his books in support of his trademark applications. See Dkt. No. 13 ¶¶ 21, 23.

11 The Ninth Circuit’s most recent guidance on personal jurisdiction in the e-commerce world comes from the decision in Herbal Brands, where the court held that purposeful direction can be established where a defendant, in its regular course of business, sells a physical product via an interactive website and causes that product to be delivered to a forum state. See 72 F.4th at 15 1094; see also Breskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 755 (9th Cir. 2025) (discussing Herbal Brands).3 The Ninth Circuit has held that the inquiry does not depend on the number of sales made to a customer in a forum, because “[d]rawing a line on the number of sales would require an arbitrary distinction that is not preferred in this area of law.” Herbal Brands, 72 F.4th at 1095.

19 As further explained, “If one sale were not enough to establish that a defendant expressly aimed its conduct at a forum, we would face the difficult question of how many sales would suffice.”

21 Id. However, concerns that a product sale may be “an isolated occurrence” should be evaluated under the third prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry, which looks to reasonableness—i.e., In his motion to dismiss, Defendant cites AMA Multimedia, LLC. v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020). Dkt.

24 No. 12 at 7. AMA Multimedia, however, was overruled by Breskin. See Breskin, 135 F.4th at 757–58.

1 fair play and substantial justice. Id. (quoting Plant Food Co-op v. Wolfill Feed & Fertilizer Corp., 633 F.2d 155, 159 (9th Cir. 1980)).

3 Plaintiffs’ request for targeted discovery regarding the sale of Defendant’s physical books and Kindle downloads will provide facts that will aid the Court in analyzing both the first and third prongs of the test for personal jurisdiction. However, the Court will limit the discovery to sales to residents of Washington. See Herbal Brands, 72 F.4th at 1093 (“[I]f a defendant, in its regular course of business, sells a physical product via an interactive website and causes that product to be delivered to [a] forum [resident], the defendant ‘expressly aimed’ its conduct at that forum.”).

10 As to Plaintiffs’ request for a copy of “Defendant’s publishing agreement with Amazon.com” in the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 20 at 1), Plaintiffs assert that, “Upon information and belief, Bluemel has entered a contract with an entity headquartered and located in Seattle, Washington to publish and distribute The Grommets.” Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 5.4 Although Defendant denies the existence of such an agreement (see Dkt. No. 23 at 2), at this procedural posture, Plaintiffs need not clear a high bar to obtain jurisdictional discovery. Defendant asserts that “[j]urisdictional discovery is appropriate only when facts are genuinely controverted or when the plaintiff presents a colorable basis for believing that the defendant’s contacts may support jurisdiction.” Id. at 3. This, however, is not the law in the Ninth Circuit. On a motion for jurisdictional discovery, “a plaintiff seeking jurisdictional discovery need not ‘first make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction actually exists.’” Does v. Trump, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1196 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (quoting Hall v. United States, No. C16-2395, 2017 WL 3252240, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017)). “Such a showing is necessary to survive a motion to dismiss, and ‘[i]t Plaintiffs’ motion here specifically seeks “Defendant’s publishing agreement with Amazon.com.” Dkt. No. 20 at 1; Dkt. No. 20-1 (proposed order) at 1.

1 || would .. . be counter intuitive to require a plaintiff, prior to conducting discovery, to meet the || same burden that would be required in order to defeat a motion to dismiss.’” NuboNau, Inc. v. || NB Labs, Ltd., No. C10-2361, 2011 WL 5237566, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011) (alteration and || omission in original) (quoting Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 673 ||(S.D. Cal. 2001)). Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant produce his || “publishing agreement” with Amazon.com, at least to the extent that such a document exists.

7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED IN || PART and DENIED IN PART. It is hereby ORDERED: 10 (1) Within thirty (30) days of this Order, Defendant SHALL produce documents 11 reflecting: (1) the sale to residents of Washington of Defendant’s physical books 12 or Kindle version from Amazon.com and all other online sites; (2) the sale of 13 Defendant’s books from brick-and-mortar stores located in Washington; and 14 (3) Defendant’s “publishing agreement” with Amazon.

15 (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 12) 16 and request for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 32) are STRICKEN, with leave to refile 17 after the completion of jurisdictional discovery, if appropriate.

18 Dated this 14th day of January 2026.

20 ana Lin United States District Judge ORDER ON MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY — 6