Loading...
 

Christian Sci Bd of Dirs of the First Church of Christ Scientist v Nolan

1. Case Name:

Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan

2. Case Cite:

259 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2001); Lexis: 259 F.3d 209

3. Facts:

Δ-Arizona resident provided files to co-Δ-North Carolina resident to post online to establish the University of Christian Science as an electronic campus. Π-Bd. of Dirs. alleged Δs used without permission trademarks belonging to Π or confusingly similar marks on the website and intended the use to confuse and mislead the public to believe the Δs were affiliated with and approved by Π.

4. Procedural Posture:

-Π filed in W.D.N.C.
-district court entered default judgment & permanently enjoined Δ-AZ resident from using the contested marks
-district court entered contempt order against Δ-AZ resident b/c he continued to violate the court's previous orders
-Δ-AZ resident appealed contesting the district court's jurisdiction

5. Issue on Appeal:

Whether Δ-AZ resident's contacts with NC were sufficient for district court's exercise of jurisdiction.

6. Holding:

Jurisdiction was proper because Δ-AZ resident purposefully availed himself of the forum state, Π's claims arose out of the forum state connections, and jurisdiction was constitutionally reasonable.

7. Reasoning and Important Dicta:

The court examined initially two factors: 1) jurisdiction under NC's long-arm statute and 2) jurisdiction under 14th amendment due process requirements. NC's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process. The question, then, is whether Δ's "minimal contacts" with NC are such that jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

The court rejects Δ's contacts as "continuous and systematic." Having rejected general jurisdiction over Δ, the court analyzes specific jurisdiction by looking at three factors: 1) purposeful availment, 2) claim-producing activity/connections, and 3) reasonableness.

First, the court found that Δ-AZ resident "deliberately entered" the arrangement with the co-Δ-NC resident fully aware that he would upload the content in NC to a NC-based domain. The court went further by saying "a prospective defendant need not initiate the relevant 'minimum contacts' to be regarded as purposefully availing himself" of the forum state. Second, Δ's forum-related activities undisputedly gave rise to Π's claims. Finally, the court found jurisdiction was reasonable within the International Shoe and Burger King framework. Π's home state was Mass., a probably more inconvenient forum for Δ-AZ resident and certainly a more inconvenient forum for Δ-NC resident. Also, NC had an interest in deterring the infringement because the infringing materials were uploaded by a NC resident working in NC to a website accessible through a NC-based domain.

8. Likely Future Importance or Unanswered Questions:

The court explicitly avoids dealing with Zippo's sliding-scale of interactivity. It recognizes the importance of the question but says it is unnecessary to answer because Δ-AZ resident's specific contacts with the forum state provided an "independent and valid basis for personal jurisdiction."

9. Critical Analysis:

I think the court got this decision correct. Δ-AZ resident could not be surprised by being haled into NC court. He reached out and created connections, whether initiated by him or not, and maintained those connections by continually sending material to be posted to the website. He also did not do himself any favors with the court by failing to appear until contempt hearings and by refusing to obey with the district court's injunction.

By avoiding the Zippo analysis, the court, I think, wisely leaves the question of "the propriety of exercising jurisdiction over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state consists of a website" to a factual situation that will turn on the answer to that question. Here, the answer to that question would not seriously affect this case because of the "independent and valid basis" on which the court holds the Δ-AZ resident under its jurisdiction.
text
Portions © 2006-2019 by Michael Risch, Some Rights Reserved | Copyright Notice| Legal Disclaimer