## Facts

- A Swedish professional photographer alleged that her copyrighted photographs were displayed without permission as a core part of the décor in Vapiano restaurants, including locations in Washington, D.C.
- The photographer sued multiple Vapiano-related entities and asserted that the German parent company, Vapiano SE, participated in a coordinated branding and design scheme implemented across the restaurant chain.
- Vapiano SE, a German corporation, argued it primarily franchised or licensed the brand internationally and lacked sufficient contacts with the District of Columbia.
- The record contained disputed and undeveloped facts about Vapiano SE’s role in setting or enforcing design and décor standards used in U.S. restaurants and its relationship to affiliated entities operating the restaurants.
- Vapiano SE acknowledged its website linked users to another Vapiano entity’s website and could route users who selected the United States to information about U.S. locations, including Washington, D.C.
- The plaintiff requested limited discovery targeted to Vapiano SE’s ties to the District and its control over U.S. branding, décor, and operations.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could rule on Vapiano SE’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion on the existing record or should allow jurisdictional discovery before determining personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the plaintiff made a sufficient prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Vapiano SE might exist based on alleged control over U.S. affiliates/franchisees and related contacts, including web-based routing to D.C. locations.

## Decision

- The court denied Vapiano SE’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice.
- The court granted the plaintiff a period of jurisdictional discovery limited to Vapiano SE’s contacts with the District of Columbia and its relationship to Vapiano entities and restaurants operating in the United States.
- The court permitted Vapiano SE to renew its personal-jurisdiction motion after discovery.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may obtain jurisdictional discovery by making a colorable or prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction may exist and by identifying specific facts that discovery could supply to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.
- At the pre-discovery stage, the plaintiff need not definitively prove personal jurisdiction; it is enough to show the jurisdictional theory is not plainly meritless and that relevant facts are likely within the defendant’s control.
- A foreign parent’s jurisdictional exposure may depend on whether local entities’ contacts can be attributed to the parent through plausible agency, alter-ego, or control-based theories.
- A defendant’s website and online routing that directs users to local operations can be considered in the minimum-contacts analysis as potential evidence of purposeful contact with the forum, though it may not alone establish jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court declined to dismiss the foreign parent company at the outset, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations and identified lines of inquiry justified targeted jurisdictional discovery before a final ruling on whether Vapiano SE was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.


Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 798 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2011)