Name: Malone v. Berry
Citation: 2007 WL 4261679
Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff-appellee filed a motion in Franklin County, Ohio, alleging a misrepresentation on an automobile for sale on an internet auction site. The defendant-appellant filed a motion to dismiss the claim alleging that the transaction did not arise in Franklin county, that the defendant did not reside in Franklin county, and that the defendant had never done business in Franklin county. The appellant failed to appear and the court entered a default judgment against the defendant for $3,000 plus court costs and interest. Then defendant appeared, represented by counsel, and asserted that Franklin County did not have jurisdiction over the defendant. This action represents the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment by not holding an evidentiary hearing to determine personal jurisdiction.
Overview: Defendant contends that his placing of an advertisement on the internet, as well as discussions by email and telephone were insufficient to allow personal jurisdiction in Franklin County Municipal Court.
Background and Description: The defendant’s advertisement was posted on “Racingjunk.com,†an online auction site. The automobile was listed as a “Road Ready '68 Red GTO Convert. c/ white top.†The advertisement represented that the vehicle was “ready to drive,†and that it had a “new rebuilt 400 Engine,†as well as a new automatic transmission. The vehicle was sold from Berry, Alabama and had a listed price of $15,500.
Holding: When holding whether a state court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the court is obligated to (1) determine whether the state’s “long arm†statute and the applicable Civil Rule confer personal jurisdiction, and if so, (2) whether granting jurisdiction under the statute and rule would deprive the defendant the right to due process of law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Ohio “long arm†statute states that a court can get jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the cause of action arises from the defendant’s “transacting any business in this state.†The court noted that a trial court must resolve the question of whether it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant by making a determinative finding on the issue, and if the trial court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, it must view the information in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
A judgment rendered over a defendant without personal jurisdiction is void.
The appeals court noted that an important factor the trial court used to find jurisdiction was that the plaintiff directly responded to the internet advertisement and negotiated the price of the automobile through email and telephone conversations. The court also noted that there was only a single transaction involved.
The Court analyzed the case based on a test stated in In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc. (C.A.6, 1972), 466 F.2d 220, 226:
First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.
The Court noted that most courts that analyze cases in which there is only a single transaction between the buyer and seller do not find personal jurisdiction in the state of the buyer. There must usually be additional conduct on the part of the seller to grant jurisdiction.
Where there is only a single transaction between the buyer and seller, a single purchase does not constitute “purposeful availment of doing business†for purposes of the seller’s personal jurisdiction. This is in-part based on the fact that the seller has no control over who will ultimately be the highest bidder.
In this case the defendant did not own the auction site, and only one transaction occurred. There is no evidence that defendant ever entered Ohio. The defendant’s contacts were too “random†and “attenuated†to create a substantial connection with the forum state to make personal jurisdiction over him reasonable.
Therefore, the appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Other Discussion: This case, while not a revolutionary decision, shows how getting an adequate remedy against an online seller can be difficult.
Citation: 2007 WL 4261679
Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff-appellee filed a motion in Franklin County, Ohio, alleging a misrepresentation on an automobile for sale on an internet auction site. The defendant-appellant filed a motion to dismiss the claim alleging that the transaction did not arise in Franklin county, that the defendant did not reside in Franklin county, and that the defendant had never done business in Franklin county. The appellant failed to appear and the court entered a default judgment against the defendant for $3,000 plus court costs and interest. Then defendant appeared, represented by counsel, and asserted that Franklin County did not have jurisdiction over the defendant. This action represents the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment by not holding an evidentiary hearing to determine personal jurisdiction.
Overview: Defendant contends that his placing of an advertisement on the internet, as well as discussions by email and telephone were insufficient to allow personal jurisdiction in Franklin County Municipal Court.
Background and Description: The defendant’s advertisement was posted on “Racingjunk.com,†an online auction site. The automobile was listed as a “Road Ready '68 Red GTO Convert. c/ white top.†The advertisement represented that the vehicle was “ready to drive,†and that it had a “new rebuilt 400 Engine,†as well as a new automatic transmission. The vehicle was sold from Berry, Alabama and had a listed price of $15,500.
Holding: When holding whether a state court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the court is obligated to (1) determine whether the state’s “long arm†statute and the applicable Civil Rule confer personal jurisdiction, and if so, (2) whether granting jurisdiction under the statute and rule would deprive the defendant the right to due process of law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Ohio “long arm†statute states that a court can get jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the cause of action arises from the defendant’s “transacting any business in this state.†The court noted that a trial court must resolve the question of whether it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant by making a determinative finding on the issue, and if the trial court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, it must view the information in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
A judgment rendered over a defendant without personal jurisdiction is void.
The appeals court noted that an important factor the trial court used to find jurisdiction was that the plaintiff directly responded to the internet advertisement and negotiated the price of the automobile through email and telephone conversations. The court also noted that there was only a single transaction involved.
The Court analyzed the case based on a test stated in In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc. (C.A.6, 1972), 466 F.2d 220, 226:
First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.
The Court noted that most courts that analyze cases in which there is only a single transaction between the buyer and seller do not find personal jurisdiction in the state of the buyer. There must usually be additional conduct on the part of the seller to grant jurisdiction.
Where there is only a single transaction between the buyer and seller, a single purchase does not constitute “purposeful availment of doing business†for purposes of the seller’s personal jurisdiction. This is in-part based on the fact that the seller has no control over who will ultimately be the highest bidder.
In this case the defendant did not own the auction site, and only one transaction occurred. There is no evidence that defendant ever entered Ohio. The defendant’s contacts were too “random†and “attenuated†to create a substantial connection with the forum state to make personal jurisdiction over him reasonable.
Therefore, the appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Other Discussion: This case, while not a revolutionary decision, shows how getting an adequate remedy against an online seller can be difficult.