Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Therefore while it could be argued that Rothstein and RRA “purposefully availed[themselves] of the privilege of conducting activities in the State” when they sent the emailsto the Maryland WIN students, Beyond Systems, 388 Md. at 26, because the recipients ofthose emails are not the plaintiffs in this action, and because the subject matter of the emailswas property in Costa Rica, not Maryland, it cannot be said that the claims arise out ofactivities “directed at” Maryland. See ALS Scan, 293 F.3d at 714, cited in MaryCLE, 166Md. App. at 501, n.20 (stating that a State may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresidentwhen that person “(1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with themanifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) thatactivity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in theState’s courts.”). The emails sent to the Maryland WIN students were not sent “with themanifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State” of Maryland.ALS Scan, 293 F.3d at 714. Thus the emails by themselves are not sufficient to conferMaryland jurisdiction over Rothstein and RRA.Because the website in this case was passive -- it simply provided information,accurate or not -- standing alone, it too is insufficient to form a basis for jurisdiction. The factthat it was accessible to Maryland residents is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. There wasno solicitation and no interaction. See Zippo,952 F. Supp. at 1124 cited in Beyond Systems,Inc., 388 Md. at 23-24. See also Cybersell v. Cybersell, 130 F.3d 414 (9 th Cir. 1997) (heldthat Arizona lacked jurisdiction over non-resident that maintained a passive website with nocommercial activity directed at Arizona); Medinah Mining v. Amunategui, 237 F. Supp. 2d1132, 1136 (D. Nev. 2002) (website that is accessible worldwide does not confer personaljurisdiction where no evidence that defendant directed website at Nevada audience); Barrett26
v. Catacombs Press, 44 F. Supp. 2d 717, 731 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (defendant’s website,accessible worldwide, was not a basis for personal jurisdiction absent evidence that ittargeted forum residents); Bailey v. Turbine Design, 86 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (W.D. Tenn.2000) (held that “the mere fact that the website contained defamatory information concerningthe plaintiff does not, absent some supporting evidence, mean that the defendant possessedthe intent to target residents of the forum.”). But see Kauffman Racing Equipment v. Roberts,2008 Ohio App. Lexis 1695, *33 (Ohio App. 5 th Dist. 2008) (held that Ohio court hadjurisdiction over non-resident defendant that posted a defamatory comment on website wherethe alleged defamation concerned a business located in Ohio and the business practices ofan Ohio resident).The question is whether the emails and the website together 21 are sufficient to conferjurisdiction over Rothstein and RRA and that question is best answered by applying the“effects” test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). 22In Calder, the plaintiff’s televisioncareer was centered in California. The non-resident reporter drew primarily on Californiasources in writing the allegedly defamatory article. Id. at 785. Shortly before publication ofthe article, the reporter called the plaintiff’s home and spoke to her husband to elicit hiscomments on the article. Id. at 786. The Enquirer, the other defendant, had its largest21For the reasons stated earlier, these are the only basis for asserting jurisdiction, but theanalysis, and the conclusion that Maryland does not have jurisdiction, is the same even if all thecontacts both case specific and general are considered. See Camelback Ski Corp. v. Behnig, 312 Md.at 338 (when case does not fit neatly into specific or general jurisdiction it may be appropriate toconsider all the contacts together).22Plaintiffs argue that the Court should also consider the email and letter sent to Strudwickin applying the Calder effects test. For the reasons stated earlier, this Court disagrees, but even ifthey are considered, the result is the same because the harm was directed to Strudwick’s businessinterests in Costa Rica, not Maryland.27
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 and 22: whether there is specific jurisdict
Page 23 and 24: tribunal less burdensome”). With
Page 25: emails marketing and soliciting bus
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?