|
|
|
No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendant Who Hosted Website and Accepted Dues from Maryland Residents
(October 2011) By Colleen K. O’Brien
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Allcarrier Worldwide Servs. v. United Network Equipment Dealer Ass’n,
No. AW-11-cv-01714 (U.S. District Court for D. Md., September 22, 2011) | View pdf
The seminal issue in this case focused on whether the Court
had personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, a non-profit organization, that
hosted a website and accepted dues from members worldwide, including those
residing in the State of Maryland. In holding that there was no personal
jurisdiction, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The cause of action arose from a membership agreement
between Plaintiff and Defendant United Network Equipment Dealer Association
(“UNEDA”). Plaintiff is a Maryland corporation, and Defendant is based in
Nebraska. Defendant had no offices or employees in Maryland. It ran a website
where members could post information to buy and sell used computer equipment.
The Plaintiff was a member of UNEDA in good standing until Defendant decided to
remove him based on allegations that he disseminated a UNEDA posting to a
non-member. After Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s membership, Plaintiff brought
the instant action, and then the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff had the burden to prove that jurisdiction
was authorized by Maryland’s long-arm statute and was consistent with
constitutional due process requirements. In order to exercise personal
jurisdiction over a Defendant, “minimum contacts” with the forum are
required.
The Court found that Defendant merely provided its
members access to a website in which the members, not Defendant, engaged in
business transactions related to buying and selling computer equipment.
Although it granted access to members internationally, including in
Maryland, its role was only “passive.” The Court declined to hold that
because Defendant accepted membership dues from Plaintiff and thirteen (13)
other Maryland residents that it was subject to personal jurisdiction in
Maryland. To find personal jurisdiction in Maryland would require a finding
of personal jurisdiction in all states in which members resided and would
eviscerate the personal jurisdiction requirements of the long arm statute
and the due process clause. Defendant’s ties with Maryland, i.e., the fact
that it had 15 Maryland members who signed membership agreements and paid
annual dues, was insufficient to support a finding of either specific or
general jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was dismissed.
|
|
|