Richard Ackourey, Jr. v. Sonellas Custom Tailors
573 F. App'x 208 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Operating a passive website that is accessible in a forum state, combined with a single, isolated purchase of an item shipped from that state, does not establish the minimum contacts necessary for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
Facts:
- Richard Ackourey, Jr., a Pennsylvania resident, owns copyrights in two fashion stylebooks.
- Dileep Kumar Daswani is an Oregon resident who owns and operates Sonella’s Custom Tailors ('SCT'), an apparel business, from his home.
- SCT conducts all its business through in-person consultations; its website allows users to email appointment requests and view a travel schedule, but does not permit online orders or payments.
- The SCT website's travel schedule listed potential available appointments in Pennsylvania.
- In March 2005, Daswani ordered a copy of Ackourey's 2005 stylebook, which was shipped from Pennsylvania to Daswani's address in Oregon.
- SCT's website later allegedly displayed Ackourey’s copyrighted images without authorization.
- Daswani has no customer base in Pennsylvania and has never traveled to the state for business purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Ackourey, Jr. filed a copyright infringement suit against Dileep Kumar Daswani and Sonella’s Custom Tailors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (a federal trial court).
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding insufficient contacts to support specific jurisdiction.
- Ackourey (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Daswani and Sonella's Custom Tailors as appellees.
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 Pennsylvania have specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant whose only contacts with the state are operating a largely passive website that advertises potential appointments in the state and making a single purchase of a book that was shipped from the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Scirica, Circuit Judge.
No, the court does not have specific personal jurisdiction. The defendant's contacts with Pennsylvania were insufficient because they were not purposefully directed at the Commonwealth. The court applied the 'Zippo' sliding scale test, concluding that SCT's website was 'essentially passive' because it did little more than advertise and allow users to email appointment requests; it did not permit any commercial transactions. The court noted that there was no evidence that any Pennsylvania residents ever used the website to schedule appointments or that the defendant ever transacted business with Pennsylvania residents through the site. Finally, the defendant's single purchase of a stylebook that happened to be shipped from Pennsylvania was deemed an 'attenuated contact' insufficient to make the defendant reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the application of the 'Zippo' sliding scale test for determining personal jurisdiction based on internet activity. It clarifies that a website must have a significant level of commercial interactivity with residents of a forum state to subject its operator to jurisdiction there. The ruling emphasizes that the mere potential for contact, such as advertising appointments in a state without any evidence of actual business being conducted, is insufficient. This case serves as a guidepost for lower courts, distinguishing between passive, informational websites and truly interactive commercial sites that purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting business in a forum state.
