Boschetto v. Hansing
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17708, 2008 WL 3852676, 539 F.3d 1011 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single sale of an item via an Internet auction site (like eBay) by a nonresident defendant to a plaintiff in the forum state does not, by itself, establish sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal jurisdiction over the seller in the buyer's forum state.
Facts:
- Paul Boschetto resided in San Francisco, California.
- Jeffrey Hansing resided in Milton, Wisconsin, and was an employee of Frank Boucher Chrysler Dodge-Jeep.
- Hansing and the Boucher Defendants advertised a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 XL 427/425 hp “R Code” on eBay, describing it as in "awesome condition, not restored, rust free chrome in excellent condition, recently rebuilt and ready to be driven," and stating its location as Janesville, Wisconsin.
- On August 8, 2005, Boschetto bid $34,106 for the Galaxie and was notified via eBay that he was the winning bidder.
- Boschetto and Hansing communicated via email to arrange for the vehicle's delivery from Wisconsin to California.
- Boschetto subsequently hired a transport company to pick up the car in Wisconsin, and it arrived in California on September 15, 2005.
- Upon delivery, Boschetto discovered that the car was not an “R Code” as advertised and noted other problems, including a motor that would not turn over, rust, and extensive body dents.
- Boschetto contacted eBay and Hansing in an unsuccessful attempt to rescind the purchase.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Boschetto filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, alleging four state law causes of action (violation of the California Consumer Protection Act; breach of contract; misrepresentation; and fraud) and invoking federal diversity jurisdiction.
- All Defendants (Jeffrey Hansing and the Boucher Defendants) moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On July 13, 2006, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the lone eBay sale was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over any of the Defendants, and denied Boschetto's request for additional jurisdictional discovery.
- Judgment was entered on July 17, 2006, by the district court.
- Boschetto timely appealed the district court's dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 the sale of a single item through the eBay Internet auction site, without additional conduct targeting the forum state, provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to support specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident seller in the buyer's forum state?
Opinions:
Majority - Betty B. Fletcher
No, the sale of a single item through the eBay Internet auction site does not provide sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident seller in the buyer's forum state without additional conduct targeting that forum. The court applied a three-part test for specific jurisdiction, focusing on the first prong: purposeful availment. For contract cases, purposeful availment requires affirmative conduct allowing or promoting business within the forum state, creating ongoing obligations, or a substantial connection. A single contract with an out-of-state party, without more, is insufficient to create a substantial connection. Hansing's one-time eBay sale did not create any ongoing obligations with Boschetto in California, nor did performance of the contract require substantial business in California, making it a "one-shot affair." The court distinguished this from cases where eBay is used for regular, systemic commercial activity. The interactive nature of eBay's platform itself was deemed largely inapplicable to the jurisdictional analysis of the individual seller, as the listing was temporary and not part of broader e-commerce activity by the defendants. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of jurisdictional discovery, finding Boschetto's request based on "speculation] without any support" that additional discovery would yield jurisdictionally relevant information.
Concurring - Rymer
No, jurisdiction is lacking because a defendant does not establish minimum contacts nationwide by listing an item for sale on eBay; "something more," such as individually targeting residents of a particular state, is required. Judge Rymer emphasized that Hansing did not purposefully avail himself of California because he created no continuing obligations to California residents, and the winning bidder's location was a fortuity, not a deliberate aiming of activity at California. Merely allowing bids from across the nation, like advertising over the internet, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction throughout the United States. The defendant must do "something more" than just permit bids from everywhere, such as tailoring the auction or targeting specific state residents. Hansing simply permitted those with eBay access throughout the United States and Canada to bid on his car, agreeing to let the winner retrieve it in Wisconsin, which is not enough to establish purposeful direction towards California. The denial of jurisdictional discovery was also appropriate where the claim of jurisdiction was attenuated and based on bare allegations.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the use of online auction platforms like eBay for a single, isolated transaction does not automatically establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident seller in the buyer's state. It reinforces the Supreme Court's "minimum contacts" analysis, particularly the purposeful availment prong, by distinguishing between passive internet presence or single transactions and continuous or extensive commercial activity targeting a forum. This decision provides important guidance for sellers and buyers engaging in e-commerce, ensuring that incidental contacts through online platforms do not lead to jurisdiction in every state where a buyer might reside, unless the seller actively cultivates business there, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of that forum's laws. It cautions against upending traditional jurisdictional analyses simply due to technological advancements.
