Abdouch v. Lopez
829 NW 2d 662 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for an intentional tort claim arising from internet activity, the defendant's conduct must be expressly aimed at the forum state, not merely accessible to or causing an effect on a resident of that state.
Facts:
- Helen Abdouch, a resident of Omaha, Nebraska, received a copy of the book 'Revolutionary Road' in 1963, inscribed to her by the author, Richard Yates.
- At an unspecified time, the inscribed book was stolen from Abdouch.
- In 2009, Ken Lopez, operating Ken Lopez Bookseller (KLB) in Massachusetts, purchased the book from a seller in Georgia.
- Lopez sold the book that same year to a customer not located in Nebraska.
- Lopez created an advertisement on the KLB website that quoted the personal inscription to Abdouch and mentioned her role as 'executive secretary of the Nebraska (John F.) Kennedy organization.'
- The advertisement, marked 'SOLD,' remained on the globally accessible website for more than three years after the sale.
- Lopez was unaware that Abdouch was a resident of Nebraska and assumed she was deceased until he was contacted in 2011.
- KLB's sales to Nebraska residents between 2009 and 2011 were minimal and initiated by the customers, not solicited by KLB.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen Abdouch sued Ken Lopez and Ken Lopez Bookseller in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, a state trial court, for invasion of privacy.
- Lopez and KLB filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
- Abdouch, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts-based bookseller have sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction there for an invasion of privacy claim, when the seller posted an advertisement on its globally accessible website using a Nebraska resident's name and historical connection to the state, but did not know the resident lived in Nebraska and did not otherwise target the state?
Opinions:
Majority - McCormack, J.
No. A nonresident defendant does not have sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state to establish specific personal jurisdiction for an intentional tort claim simply by posting information on a globally accessible website that incidentally harms a resident of that state. To satisfy due process, the defendant must have expressly aimed their tortious conduct at the forum state. The court found that KLB's contacts with Nebraska were insufficient for specific personal jurisdiction. Applying the 'Calder effects test,' the court determined that KLB did not 'expressly aim' its conduct at Nebraska. The advertisement was posted on a website accessible worldwide, not targeted at Nebraska residents. The mention of Nebraska in the ad was incidental to describing the book's provenance. Crucially, because Lopez did not know Abdouch was a Nebraska resident, he could not have known that the 'brunt' of the alleged harm would be suffered there, which is a required element of the Calder test. The unilateral activity of Abdouch's representative contacting Lopez cannot create jurisdiction, as the focus must be on the defendant's purposeful availment of the forum.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a narrow interpretation of the 'Calder effects test' in the context of internet-based torts, requiring a plaintiff to show that the defendant 'expressly aimed' its conduct at the forum state. It clarifies that the mere foreseeability of harm to a resident of a state is insufficient; the defendant's conduct must be intentionally targeted at the state itself. This ruling protects individuals and businesses operating online from being subject to personal jurisdiction in any state where their content is accessible, thereby preventing a chilling effect on internet commerce and speech and ensuring jurisdictional rules are not stretched beyond the constitutional limits of due process.
