Young v. New Haven Advocate
CA-00-86 (2003)
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 based on their internet activity, the defendant must have manifested an intent to direct their electronic activity at the forum state, not merely posted information accessible there that causes an injury to a resident.
Facts:
- The State of Connecticut contracted with the Commonwealth of Virginia to house Connecticut prisoners at Wallens Ridge State Prison, a 'supermax' facility in Virginia.
- Stanley Young was the warden at Wallens Ridge.
- The New Haven Advocate, a Connecticut newspaper, published an article by Camille Jackson about the transfer policy, which mentioned Young and concerns about Confederate memorabilia in his office.
- The Hartford Courant, another Connecticut newspaper, published columns by Amy Pagnozzi criticizing the policy and calling Wallens Ridge a 'cut-rate gulag'.
- Both newspapers posted these articles on their websites, which were primarily focused on Connecticut news, events, and advertising.
- The newspapers' primary circulation and business operations are in Connecticut; the Courant had only eight mail subscribers in Virginia.
- The defendant reporters conducted their work primarily in Connecticut, though they made a few phone calls into Virginia to gather information.
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley Young filed a diversity action for libel against the two newspapers, their editors, and two reporters in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
- The newspaper defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
- The district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over them.
- The newspaper defendants, as appellants, were granted permission to bring an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Young as the appellee.
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 Virginia have specific personal jurisdiction over Connecticut-based newspaper defendants whose only significant contact with Virginia is posting allegedly defamatory articles about a Virginia resident on websites that are accessible in Virginia but are not specifically targeted at a Virginia audience?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Michael
No. A court in Virginia cannot constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the Connecticut-based newspaper defendants because they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience. The court applied the test from ALS Scan, which requires that an out-of-state defendant (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates a potential cause of action. The court found that simply making information accessible online is insufficient; there must be evidence of 'targeting' the forum state. Here, the websites' content was decidedly local to Connecticut, and the articles themselves focused on a Connecticut political debate for a Connecticut audience. The focal point of the articles was Connecticut's policy, not the Virginia warden. Therefore, the defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the privileges of conducting activities in Virginia and could not reasonably anticipate being sued there.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the 'effects test' from Calder v. Jones in the context of the internet. It establishes that for personal jurisdiction to attach to a defendant based on website content, the foreseeability of harm to a plaintiff in the forum state is not enough. The defendant must have affirmatively targeted the forum state's audience, preventing the chilling effect of subjecting any online publisher to suit in any jurisdiction where their content could be viewed. This 'targeting' requirement provides a crucial limitation on internet-based jurisdiction, ensuring that jurisdiction aligns with a defendant's purposeful conduct rather than the internet's global reach.
