Tamburo v. Dworkin
2010 WL 1387299, 601 F.3d 693, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7261 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff alleges intentional torts committed via the Internet, specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants can be established under the 'express aiming' test of Calder v. Jones if the defendants intentionally directed their tortious conduct at the forum state with the knowledge that the plaintiff would suffer the brunt of the injury there, and the injury arises out of those forum-related activities.
Facts:
- John Tamburo, residing in Illinois, operates Man’s Best Friend Software, a business designing software for dog breeders that includes an online database called The Breeder’s Standard.
- Tamburo created The Breeder’s Standard database by using an automated computer program to scan the Internet and retrieve dog-pedigree information from public websites.
- Tamburo obtained much of the data for his software from websites operated by Steven Dworkin (Canadian resident), Kristen Henry (Colorado resident), Roxanne Hayes (Michigan resident), and Karen Mills (Ohio resident).
- In retaliation, Henry, Hayes, and Mills posted statements on their websites accusing Tamburo of 'theft' and 'hacking,' called for a boycott of his products, and published his Illinois address urging readers to harass him.
- Steven Dworkin emailed Tamburo demanding removal of the 'stolen' data and, upon non-compliance, emailed others in the online dog-pedigree community, accusing Tamburo of theft and suggesting they 'band together to stop this theft.'
- Wild Systems Pty Ltd., an Australian software company, through its owner Ronald DeJong, managed a private Yahoo! email listserve for customers of its Breedmate software.
- The individual defendants sent messages protesting Tamburo's data acquisition to DeJong, who then transmitted these messages to the Breedmate listserve.
- Tamburo estimates he lost over $525,000 in sales as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- John Tamburo, doing business as Man’s Best Friend Software, and Versity Corporation (plaintiffs), filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Steven Dworkin, Kristen Henry, Roxanne Hayes, Karen Mills, and Wild Systems Pty Ltd. (defendants).
- Tamburo sought a declaratory judgment that he did not violate federal law and damages for federal and state antitrust violations, defamation, tortious interference, trade libel, and civil conspiracy under Illinois law.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court concluded that personal jurisdiction was lacking as to all defendants and dismissed the case without considering the alternative failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.
- Tamburo moved for reconsideration, asking the court to transfer the case to the Western District of Michigan, which the district court denied.
- Tamburo (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Dworkin, Henry, Hayes, Mills, and Wild Systems Pty Ltd. as defendants-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 Illinois have specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state and foreign defendants who allegedly commit intentional torts via the Internet, knowing the plaintiff resides and operates his business in Illinois, thereby causing injury in Illinois?
Opinions:
Majority - Sykes, Circuit Judge
Yes, a federal court in Illinois has specific personal jurisdiction over the individual out-of-state and foreign defendants who allegedly committed intentional torts via the Internet against Tamburo, because their conduct was expressly aimed at Illinois, but not over the Australian corporate defendant. The court applied the 'express aiming' test from Calder v. Jones, which requires: (1) intentional conduct, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) with the defendant's knowledge that the effects (injury) would be felt in the forum state. The court found that Tamburo's allegations of defamation, tortious interference, trade libel, and civil conspiracy constituted intentional and allegedly tortious acts. For Dworkin, Henry, Hayes, and Mills, their acts of posting defamatory statements on public websites, sending blast emails, urging boycotts, and even providing Tamburo's Illinois address, were specifically directed at Tamburo and his Illinois-based business. They engaged in this conduct with the knowledge that Tamburo lived and worked in Illinois and would suffer the 'brunt of the injury' there. The court distinguished this from 'untargeted negligence,' viewing these actions as an 'electronic entry' into Illinois, akin to the distribution of a libelous tabloid. The alleged injuries directly arose out of these specific, forum-directed contacts. Furthermore, exercising jurisdiction over these individual defendants in Illinois comports with 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,' given Illinois's strong interest in protecting its residents, the impracticality of separate lawsuits in multiple states, and the efficiency of a single forum. However, specific personal jurisdiction was lacking over Wild Systems. The allegations against Wild Systems only stated that its owner, DeJong, reposted an unspecified number of messages of unspecified content to a private listserve, without alleging knowledge that Tamburo operated his business in Illinois or a specific purpose to injure him there. The antitrust claims against all defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim under the pleading standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, as they were pleaded in a wholly conclusory fashion without sufficient factual allegations of an antitrust conspiracy or injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Calder v. Jones 'effects test' to intentional torts committed over the Internet, particularly within the Seventh Circuit. By affirming jurisdiction over individual defendants who targeted an Illinois resident through online statements and actions, the court reinforces that physical presence is not required when tortious conduct is expressly aimed at a forum state with knowledge of the injury there. This decision has implications for online speech and business, suggesting that individuals who intentionally harm out-of-state businesses or residents through internet activities may be subject to jurisdiction in the victim's home state, regardless of their own physical location.
