Lidov (D) wrote an allegedly defamatory article against Revell (P) about his knowledge that a plane would crash.
Lidov (from MA) posted the article to a Columbia (in NY) message board.
Revell (from TX) sued Lidov and Columbia in TX.
Procedural History:
D won in district court.
Decision affirmed, D wins, no jurisdiction
Issues:
Can a forum state exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who writes/hosts an article injuring a party in the forum state if the article is not directed at the forum state or any activities occurring there?
Holding/Rule:
A state may only exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who writes/hosts an article injuring a party in the forum state if the article is directed at the forum state or activities occurring there.
Reasoning:
The operation of a website can support the minimum contacts necessary for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. It must be measured on a "sliding scale" as described in Zippo.
A "passive website", one that merely allows the owner to post information on the internet, is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction
On the other end are sites whose owners engage in repeated online contacts with forum residents over the internet. Personal jurisdiction may be proper in these cases.
In between are sites with some interactive elements. These sites require examination of the extent of interactivity and nature of the forum contacts.
Calder's "effects test" is just one facet of minimum contacts analysis.
The article contains no reference to TX, does not refer to activities in TX, and is not directed at TX readers as distinguished from readers in other states.
A plaintiff's residence in a forum state and suffering harm there alone will not support jurisdiction under Calder.
D did not even know that Revell was a TX resident at the time of authorship. Knowledge of the particular state in which a plaintiff will suffer the harm is an important element in the test.
Dissent:
None given.
Notes:
Effects test language has been used extensively in the many cases in which the D's contacts have involved the internet
Here, a paper by a Harvard prof posted on a Columbia web page was highly critical of Buck Revell (of the FBI) relating to Pan Am 103 crash
Revell (living in TX) files suit there (obviously better to be in TX than in MA or NY because of parties/loyalties involved)
Does this fit the effects test?
Seems like it could fit if we look at the effects test broadly.
Court doesn't like the broad test, tries to pare it down.
Test of the 4th Circuit
A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person when that person…
Directs electronic activity into the state,
With the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the state, and
That activity creates, in a person within the state, a potential cause of action cognizable in the state's courts
Even if the "effects test" analysis fails to give jurisdiction over a D, purposeful availment can be found based on a contractual relationship or based on triggering the "stream of commerce".
