Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

sending an email to Strudwick “rise to the level” of purposefully availing oneself of theprivilege of conducting activities in Maryland. See Bond, 391 Md. at 731.The February 17, 2007 letter sent to Strudwick suffers from the same defects as theemail sent to Strudwick: it may be relevant evidence in a trial, but plaintiffs’ claims do notarise out of that letter. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts to show that the letter injuredplaintiffs. And as discussed earlier, sending correspondence into the state, without more, isnot “purposefully availing” oneself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state. Thusthe letter is not relevant to determining if Maryland has jurisdiction.The website and emails sent to Maryland WIN studentsThe remaining contacts that plaintiffs assert subject defendants to the jurisdiction ofthis Court are the website, “BARRYBUSTED.com,” and the email flyers sent to the 35 WINstudents, which included seven Maryland residents. These contacts once again illustrate how“technology brings new challenges to applying the principles of personal jurisdiction.”MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 166 Md. App. 481, 500 (2006) (citation andinternal quotation marks omitted). Once upon a time, a person’s “presence within theterritorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personallybinding him.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations omitted).This requirement of physical presence, however, evolved into a more flexible standardknown today as “minimum contacts.” Id. at 316. Over 50 years ago, before the internet wasimagined, the Supreme Court recognized that advances in communication technologyexpanded the “permissible scope of personal jurisdiction.” McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355U.S. 220, 222-23 (1957). See also Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1958)(“progress in communications and transportation has made the defense of a suit in a foreign22
tribunal less burdensome”). With the advent of the internet, technology has progressed inleaps and bounds, but it has still not eliminated the due process limitation on a State’sauthority to subject a non-resident to its jurisdiction. See ALS Scan v. Digital ServiceConsultants, 293 F.3d 707, 712-13 (4 th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the notion that an internet usersubmits to the jurisdiction of a State by merely sending “electronic signals into the State. .. .” because if such an interpretation of minimum contacts were adopted, “State jurisdictionover persons would be universal, and notions of limited State sovereignty and personaljurisdiction would be eviscerated.”).Beyond Systems was the first time a Maryland appellate court considered theapplication of personal jurisdiction to cases involving the internet. There the Court citedwith approval the test set out in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa. 1997) for determining when publication on a website forms the basisfor personal jurisdiction.[A]t one end . . . are situations where a defendant clearly doesbusiness over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contractswith residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowingand repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet,personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end aresituations where a defendant has simply posed information on anInternet Website which is accessible to users in foreignjurisdictions. A passive Website that does little more than makeinformation available to those who are interested in it is notgrounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The middleground is occupied by interactive Websites where a user canexchange information with the host computer. In these cases, theexercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level ofinteractivity and commercial nature of the exchange ofinformation that occurs on the Web site.952 F. Supp. at 1124, cited in Beyond Systems, 388 Md. at 23-24. Although Zippo was citedin Beyond Systems, it was not applied. Instead the appellate court concluded that there was23
Page 2: In July 2008 Rothstein and Steven N
Page 5 and 6: shareholders permitting such voting
Page 7 and 8: lawsuit until such time as all reme
Page 9 and 10: In February 2007 defendants sent em
Page 11 and 12: arm statute.” Mackey, 391 Md. at
Page 13 and 14: printout of the web page of RRA. Th
Page 15 and 16: (1958)] suggests that the activitie
Page 17 and 18: jurisdiction over RRA for its “co
Page 19 and 20: State; and (3) whether the exercise
Page 21: whether there is specific jurisdict
Page 25 and 26: emails marketing and soliciting bus
Page 27 and 28: v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp. 2d
Page 29 and 30: shares relevant characteristics wit
Page 31 and 32: suffering of harm there, will not a
Page 33 and 34: the acts are “targeted at a plain
Page 35 and 36: Relying on Freetown v. Whiteman, 93
Page 37 and 38: the requirements of the conspiracy
Page 39 and 40: Instead it states that in deciding
Page 41 and 42: Plaintiffs’ assertion that RRA ha

Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?