Jackson v. California Newspapers Partnership
406 F. Supp. 2d 893 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in an online defamation case, the defendant must have purposefully directed its activities at the forum state; mere accessibility of a locally-focused website in the forum state, combined with harm felt by a resident plaintiff, is insufficient to satisfy due process.
Facts:
- On March 24, 2005, Jim Mohr, a sports editor for the California-based Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, attended a health forum in Riverside, California.
- Mohr wrote an article that was published in the newspaper and on its website, www.dailybulletin.com.
- The article falsely attributed a quote to speaker Ellen Coleman, stating, 'Bo Jackson lost his hip because of anabolic abuse.'
- Coleman later provided a sworn affidavit stating she never mentioned Bo Jackson in her speech or in her conversation with Mohr.
- Vincent 'Bo' Jackson, a well-known athlete with a national reputation, is a resident of Illinois.
- The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and its website are directed at residents of the Ontario, California area.
- At the time of the lawsuit, only one of the newspaper's 65,000 print subscribers resided in Illinois, and none of its internet subscribers were in Illinois.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent 'Bo' Jackson filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against The California Newspapers Partnership and others for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively, to transfer the case to California.
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 federal court in Illinois have personal jurisdiction over California-based newspaper defendants whose allegedly defamatory article, focused on a California event, was posted on a locally-focused website accessible in Illinois, causing injury to an Illinois resident?
Opinions:
Majority - Moran, Senior District Judge
No. The court lacks personal jurisdiction because exercising it over the California defendants would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For specific jurisdiction to exist, the defendants must have purposefully directed their activities at Illinois residents, and the litigation must arise from those activities. Here, the defendants' actions were not directed at Illinois. The article concerned a local California event, was published on a website focused on a California community, and had virtually no subscribers or targeted audience in Illinois. Distinguishing this case from Calder v. Jones, the court noted that the story was not sourced from or focused on Illinois, and while Jackson felt harm in Illinois, his national reputation meant the 'brunt of the harm' was not uniquely concentrated there. Applying the Zippo 'sliding scale' test, the court found the website was not sufficiently interactive with Illinois residents to establish the necessary minimum contacts. Simply maintaining a website accessible in Illinois is not enough to create universal personal jurisdiction, as the defendants could not have reasonably anticipated being haled into an Illinois court.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Calder 'effects test' to internet-based defamation claims, reinforcing that foreseeability of harm in a forum is not enough for personal jurisdiction. The court's use of the Zippo interactivity scale demonstrates that the defendant's conduct must be specifically and intentionally aimed at the forum state, not merely accessible within it. This decision protects local publishers with an online presence from being subject to suit in any jurisdiction where a plaintiff happens to reside, thereby preventing the internet from creating nearly universal personal jurisdiction. It establishes that for plaintiffs with a national reputation, the presumption that harm is centered in their state of residence is weakened.
Unlock the full brief for Jackson v. California Newspapers Partnership