Chapter 2: More on JURISDICTION

Chapter 2: More on JURISDICTION

Due ProcessDue Process

Can only be sued where action does not offend “traditional notions of fair play & substantial justice”

Translation -- Under the circumstances, would I be surprised if I were sued in a particular venue for some harm that I allegedly caused.?

Application -- Decide what seems “fair” first, then manipulate legal context to reach that determination

U.S. Court Jurisdiction on the Internet

General Jurisdiction

U.S. Court Jurisdiction on the Internet

General Jurisdiction

Defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic business activity within the state

Lawsuit may be unrelated to actual activities in the state.

I.e., defendant may be sued on any matter in the state once jurisdiction is established.

Specific JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionD� efendant does not conduct substantial business within the

state, but plaintiff’s claim arises out of defendant’s contacts with the state, which are sufficient that it is “just” to force a legal defense in that state.

�Factors courts weigh to determine if contacts are sufficient: Purposeful Availment: Degree to which defendant

purposefully directed activities within the state Relatedness: Degree to which claim arises from defendant’s

contacts with the state. Reasonableness: Degree to which jurisdiction is reasonable

based on issues such as defendant's burden, plaintiff's [in]convenience and state’s interest in entertaining the suit.

Specific Jurisdiction and the InternetSpecific Jurisdiction and the Internet Lawsuit s/b related to Internet contacts

Sliding Scale Analysis for ‘Purposeful Availment’• Business conducted in state over the Internet (yes)• Information exchanged with persons in state (maybe)

– Commercial Interactivity– Evidence of targeting the state

• Passive (no)

Effects Test for ‘Purposeful Availment’• Intends to cause brunt of harm in the state.• The increasing importance of Targeting

Highlighted Cases and ExamplesHighlighted Cases and Examples The Blue Note case

• Passive site Jeske v. Fenmore

• Interactive site Verizon v. Ralsky

• Use of effects test in spam case Pavlovich v. Santa Clara County (DeCSS case)

• Passive site• Did not target harmful effects from trade secret misappropriation

into California Yahoo! auctions in France [see text] ElcomSoft and the DMCA in U.S. [see text]

Other ExamplesOther Examples Bangoura v. Wash. Post

• UN official in Kenya moves to Canada and sues for defamation – no personal jurisdiction in Canada

Young v. New Haven Advocate• Local story allegedly defames Virginia prison guard –

no personal jurisdiction in Va.

Bell v. Imperial Palace Hotel• Back injury in Las Vegas hotel not sufficiently related

to Internet contacts to support jurisdiction.

Can the Judgment be Enforced?Can the Judgment be Enforced?

Full faith and credit within/across U.S. states

International agreements vary widely• Hague Convention negotiations

Importance of suing multinational corporations with local, reachable assets

Yahoo! example