Dismissal on Personal Jurisdictional Grounds Affirmed against Spam Plaintiff
I frequently say that a motion to dismiss on the basis of personal jurisdiction is pretty much a waste of time in this day and age. Every now and then I came across a case which makes me rethink this. The Ninth Circuit (in an unpublished opinion) issued one such decision last week: Silverstein v. Experienced Internet.com, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 3364 (9th Cir. 2008):
William Silverstein ("Silverstein") appeals the district court's
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of Silverstein's
motion for reconsideration. He alleged that he is an Internet Service
Provider ("ISP") and that Experienced Internet.com, Inc. ("EIC") sent
him unsolicited commercial emails ("spam"), in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 7701-7713, and California Business & Professions Code sec. 17500 et seq. Because Silverstein has not shown that any of the defendants have any
contact with California, there is no basis for either specific or
general jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction over the parties does not
exist.
I think the moral of the story is that courts (rightly or wrongly) always apply the jurisdictional analysis with their view of the merits in mind.
Comments