[12582] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Brock Meeks and Jurisdiction
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (DAN L. BURK)
Mon May 23 04:27:01 1994
Date: 22 May 94 21:21:00 EST
From: "DAN L. BURK" <DBURK@gmuvax.gmu.edu>
To: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
Paul Robinson writes:
> I'm lost here. Why is he being sued in Ohio if he lives in Washington?
Answer: The suit was most likely filed in Ohio because it was the available
forum most favorable to the plaintiff -- i.e., Ohio law somehow gives the
plaintiff a tactical advantage, is physically more convenient to the plaintiff,
or something like that.
> If the defendant was not present and has no agent or representative in Ohio
> at some point, I would think there is a lack of jurisdiction to try this case.
Let's try to unpack this a bit:
1) Most states' "long arm" statutes will confer jurisdiction to try such a suit
if the out-of-state defendant has certain "minimum contacts" with the forum
state.
2) Venue will generally lie either at the place of the tort or where the
defendant resides.
3) The presence of an agent or representative is not dispositive -- other
contacts will suffice. An agent or representative tends to be more an issue
of service of process -- if the plaintiff can show proper extraterritorial
service of the summons and complaint, the presence of an agent in the state
may be immaterial.
Some states have designated the State Attorney General or other state official
as a constructive agent for service of process on out of state defendants.
So, the real issues of interest here are first, does Brock have the "minimum
contacts" with Ohio required by the Constitution, and second, what was the "
place of the tort."
I don't know anything about Brock except what I've seen on-line, so will ignore
the possibility that he has bank accounts on Ohio, does business there, or
whatever. The interesting question is whether his on-line news reports, which
are presumably distributed to Internet sites located in Ohio, satisfies the
"minimum contacts" question.
Tough issue -- there is a recent case out of Texas holding that a telephone
call into Texas territory is not enough to confer jurisdiction (and I might add
that Texas has a very expansive long arm statute). However, distributing
"Cyberwire Dispatches" to multiple sites in Ohio (among other places) might be
considered more substantial activity than placing a single phone call to a
single recipient. I can imagine a pretty good argument that Brock had
enough contacts with Ohio to qualify.
If I'm right, then all of us on this list are probably amenable to
jurisdiction in any of the states where com-priv is read -- not to mention
other listserves, BBS and so on that we're active on. Makes you think, doesn't
it?
As to the place of the tort -- it will depend on Ohio libel law, but I can
imagine the place of the tort being anywhere that the allegely defamatory
dispatches were recieved and/or read. That would include a lot of places in
Ohio and elsewhere. Also something to think about.
Dan L. Burk
George Mason University
dburk@gmuvax.gmu.edu
