Summary
holding that tortious effects felt in forum state were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction where there is no evidence that defendant intended to target forum state
Summary of this case from Chang v. Virgin Mobile USA, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0742-D
October 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court must decide whether it can exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant who posted on an Internet website messages that the plaintiff maintains are libelous and disparaging. Concluding that the defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Texas to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the court dismisses this action without prejudice.
In an October 16, 2003 letter to the clerk of court, plaintiffs counsel requests that the court set a hearing on this motion. Treating the request as a motion, the court denies it. See Ham v. La Cienega Music Co., 4 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 1993) ("The district court usually resolves the jurisdictional issue without conducting a hearing.").
I
Plaintiff Archer and White, Inc. ("Archer") sued defendant Tim Tishler, DOS ("Dr. Tishler") in Texas state court on claims for libel and business disparagement based on statements he made on a message board located at www.dentaltown.com about Archer handpieces (i.e., dentist's drills) and about why KaVo dropped Archer as a distributor of its dental equipment. Dr. Tishler removed the case to this court based on diversity of citizenship, and he now moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Archer is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas. Dr. Tishler is a citizen of the state of Illinois who purchased a vector handpiece through an Archer sales representative and received it via shipment from Texas. Archer alleges that Dr. Tishler subsequently posted defamatory statements regarding the vector handpiece on a message board on the www.dentaltown.com website. In particular, it complains of the following statement:
The only reason Archer White sells these Vector handpieces is because KaVo dropped them several years ago. The reason being, they were selling older models of KaVo that had been out of production for several years. So of course they would be cheaper than everyone else on KaVo handpieces. Now they are selling these KaVo knockoffs because everyone wants[s] to compare their product to KaVo[.]
Pet. ¶ 4.
Dr. Tishler moves to dismiss on the ground that he lacks minimum contacts with the state of Texas.
II A
The determination whether a federal district court has in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is bipartite. The court first decides whether the long-arm statute of the state in which it sits confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant. If it does, the court then resolves whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with due process under the United States Constitution. See Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the Texas long-arm statute extends to the limits of due process, the court need only consider whether exercising jurisdiction over Dr. Tishler is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id., Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when (1) that defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing "minimum contacts" with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over that defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." To comport with due process, the defendant's conduct in connection with the forum state must be such that he "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in the forum state."Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999) (footnotes omitted). To determine whether exercising jurisdiction would satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, the court examines (1) the defendant's burden, (2) the forum state's interests, (3) the plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief, (4) the judicial system's interest in efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the state's shared interest in fundamental social policies. Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 1993).
A defendant's contacts with the forum may support either specific or general jurisdiction over the defendant. Mink, 190 F.3d at 336 (quoting Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994)). Specific jurisdiction exists when the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state arise from, or are directly related to, the cause of action. Id. For the court properly to assert specific personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have "purposefully directed" his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation must result from alleged injuries that "arise out of or relate to" the defendant's activities directed at the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408,414 (1984)). General jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are unrelated to the cause of action but are "continuous and systematic." Mink, 190 F.3d at 336 (citations omitted). The court need only consider the question of specific jurisdiction because Archer concedes that it cannot establish general jurisdiction. See P. Resp. at 1, ¶ 3.
B
Dr. Tishler contends the court lacks specific jurisdiction because posting a message on an Internet website is insufficient of itself to constitute conduct that is purposefully directed at Texas. He also posits that he does not maintain, host, create, or partially own the website that sponsors the message board in question and that he has done nothing to purposefully avail himself of the privilege of doing business in Texas.
Archer argues that the court has specific jurisdiction because Dr. Tishler ordered, purchased, and received the vector handpiece directly from Archer in Texas and that its claims against him arise from the posting of website messages concerning the equipment he purchased. Archer also asserts that Dr. Tishler's comments were directed to Texas and that Archer felt the effects of the messages here.
C
Archer has not established — based on Dr. Tishler's ordering and receiving a handpiece from Archer — a prima facie case that its lawsuit arises out of or is related to his activities directed at Texas. Archer's libel and business disparagement claims arise out of or are related to Dr. Tishler's posting of messages on the www.dentaltown.com website. Although the allegations in the messages may stem from his dissatisfaction with the handpiece he purchased, none of Archer's claims arises out of or is related to the purchase transaction itself. Instead, Archer's lawsuit arises out of or is related to what Dr. Tishler wrote on the website. To illustrate this, it need only be noted that the statements about which Archer complains would be actionable even had Dr. Tishler not purchased the handpiece in this transaction and that Archer does not complain about Dr. Tishler's conduct with respect to the purchase transaction itself.
Accordingly, to establish personal jurisdiction over Dr. Tishler, Archer must demonstrate specific jurisdiction based on the website message postings. Archer contends that Dr. Tishler expressly aimed his allegations and defamatory statements toward Archer in Texas. Relying on Colder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), Archer reasons that Texas is the focal point of Dr. Tishler's allegations and of the harm suffered. The court disagrees.
This case is closer to Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002), than to Calder. In Revell a Texas plaintiff brought suit in this court against, inter alia, a Massachusetts defendant who wrote a disparaging article that was posted on the website of a New York university. Judge Buchmeyer dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The panel distinguished Calder's "effects" test from the prima facie case that the plaintiff had developed. After "emphasiz[ing] that the `effects' test is but one facet of the ordinary minimum contacts analysis," it noted that the article in question contained no reference to Texas, did not refer to the plaintiffs Texas activities, and was not directed at Texas readers "as distinguished from readers in other states." Id. at 473.
The same is true of Dr. Tishler's statements in this case. Archer's evidence shows only that its largest customer base is composed of Texas dentists. See P. App. 3. One of its owners avers that the effects of Dr. Tishler's postings were felt in Texas. Id. at 4. This is insufficient, however, because there is no evidence that Dr. Tishler intended to target or focus on Texas readers as distinguished from readers in other states. See Revell, 317 F.3d at 475 (discussing Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256, 262 (4th Cir. 2002)).
Dr. Tishler's motion to dismiss is granted, and this action is dismissed without prejudice by judgment filed today.