GS Holistic, LLC v. Stars Wireless and Smoke LLC et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
GS HOLISTIC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
STARS WIRELESS & SMOKE,
LLC, etal.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cv-641
Judge Walter H. Rice
Mag. Judge Michael R. Merz
ORDER OVERRULINGDEFENDANTMAHMOUD ALILI'SMOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. #32)
On October 30, 2025, Defendant Mahmoud Alili filed a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1, 2, 6) for lack of jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. (Motion, Doc. #32, PAGEID 106). Alili argues that there are
no allegations against him personally, only in his capacity as agent for Defendant
Stars Wireless & Smoke LLC. (Id). Specifically, Alili claims that "he had no
interaction with agent for GS [H]olistics[;] nor is there any allegation or evidence
that he is responsible for the ordering of or knowledge of the alleged counterfeit
item[. ]" (Id. }.
A motion to dismiss asserting lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state
a claim, FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2, 6), "must be made before pleading if a responsive
pleading is allowed. " FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). On January 5, 2024, Alili filed an Answer,
Case: 1:23-cv-00641-WHR Doc #: 35 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

stating in its entirety: "Comes now the Defendant Pro Se in the above captioned
matter and denies all specifications and allegations as set forth in Plaintiff[']s
complaint[. ]" (Doc. #8, PAGEID 33). Accordingly, Alili may not be dismissed on
those grounds.
As to the Rule 12(b)(1) argument, the Court has an ongoing duty to ensure
that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. SeeArbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U. S. 500,
507 (2006), citing FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) ("The objection that a federal court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised ... at any stage in the litigation[. ]").
However, Plaintiff GS Holistic, LLC has brought claims against Alili under the
federal Lanham Act of 1946, and Plaintiff is correct that this Court has original
jurisdiction over federal questions such as trademark infringement. (Compl., Doc.
#1, PAGEID l, ^ 1-2, citing 15U. S. C. § 1121; 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1338(a)). Thus,
the Complaint cannot be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
For the reasons set forth above, Alili's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #32) is
OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #29) and Alili's Motion
to Set Aside Default (Doc. #31) remain pending before the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 13, 2025
L/o^Ub^r H^
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 1:23-cv-00641-WHR Doc #: 35 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>