TO: NPC Grader
FROM: Sarrah Marting
DATE: October 10th, 2015
RE: Froogle v. Mary
FACTS: Froogle is based in California, Mary has a business in Vermont. Froogle and Mary have a contract allowing Mary to advertise on Froogle’s search engine. Mary has never been in California, all communication between Froogle and Mary has been done via telephone and internet. Froogle claims that Mary has violated their agreement. Froogle has filed a suit against Mary in the Superior Court for the county of Monterey, in Salinas California.
Does the Superior Court of Salinas California have personal jurisdiction over Mary an out of state defendant who advertises on a California based
…show more content…
Thus, the “ ‘purposeful availment’ requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts, or of the ‘unilateral activity of another party or a third person.’ Foreseeability of effects in the forum is not itself enough to justify long-arm jurisdiction”].) Instead, the plaintiff must also “point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum … .”, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew that the plaintiff would suffer the brunt of the harm caused by the tortious conduct in the forum, and point to specific activity indicating that the defendant expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum.”Internet use, other courts have considered this issue, and most have adopted a sliding scale analysis. “At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. [Citation.] At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is