a. Facts-
P is an actress and Ds an editor and writer. D produced a libelous article in
FL about P, who lives in CA. P sued in CA Ct for damages (IIED). D challenged
on the basis that CA Ct’s do NOT have Jx over D, a resident of FL.
b. Procedural
History- Ds appealed CA’s Jx over them
c. Issue-
Whether CA Ct has Jx over non-resident D’s for claims arising from a libelous
article directed toward a CA resident.
d. Holding-
Yes, CA can have Jx over a non-resident D for an article directed towards a CA
resident
e. Rule-
Any State can exercise personal Jx over anyone whose intentional acts, of which
are the claim of suit, reach somebody of that State
f. Rationale-
Even though Ds are employees of a magazine, this does NOT preclude them from
answering claims arising from their intentional acts
i.
Ex: A welder working for a boiler
company may NOT have to answer when the boiler explodes, but he might have to
answer if he intentionally tampered
with the boiler
g. Notes:
i.
Although D’s did NOT go to CA, their
actions resulted in harm in CA. CA was the focal point of the claim. Damage was
suffered in CA, her reputation was affected in CA, and the article was directed
towards her who lived in CA
ii.
Effects- “Brunt of the harm” test: Harm
was done in CA (she wouldn’t be able to get a job in CA)
1. Targeting:
there were intentional actions that were expressly aimed at CA
iii.
3 parts “Effects” test
1. Intentional
act
2. Whether
the effect of the harm was in the forum State
3. Whether
the D intends OR knows the harm will be effected in the forum State
No comments:
Post a Comment