Internet Solutions Corp V. Marshall Case Study
1. Case Name, Citation, and Court
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall
LEXIS 2826I (2008)
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2. Key Facts
A. Internet Solutions Corp. (ISC), which operates employment recruiting and Internet advertising websites, has its principal place of business in Florida.
B. Tabatha Marshall, a resident of the State of Washington, was sued by ISC for making false and defamatory statements on her website.
C. Marshall filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.
3. I = Issue
A. Whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case at bar?
B. Whether the district court can exercise in personam jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant? …show more content…
Due process requires that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam in a state in which she does not reside, she must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state.
5. A = Analysis
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that:
A. ISC has its principal place of business in Florida. Marshall is an individual who resides in Washington. This case involves a controversy that exceeds the value of $75,000. Therefore, this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
B. ISC has made sufficient allegations that Marshall committed tortious conduct through her website which caused injury to ISC’s business in Florida. Marshall’s affidavit is insufficient to rebut the claim. Therefore, there is jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute.
C. The minimum contacts must be purposeful contacts. Marshall’s website is equally accessible to persons in all states. Also the postings do not specifically mention Florida or its residents. Therefore, the tortious act would not sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts.
6. C = Conclusion
The court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. However, the case is dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction because there are not sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the principles of the Due Process Clause. Defendant’s motion granted and case
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall
LEXIS 2826I (2008)
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2. Key Facts
A. Internet Solutions Corp. (ISC), which operates employment recruiting and Internet advertising websites, has its principal place of business in Florida.
B. Tabatha Marshall, a resident of the State of Washington, was sued by ISC for making false and defamatory statements on her website.
C. Marshall filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.
3. I = Issue
A. Whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case at bar?
B. Whether the district court can exercise in personam jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant? …show more content…
Due process requires that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam in a state in which she does not reside, she must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state.
5. A = Analysis
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that:
A. ISC has its principal place of business in Florida. Marshall is an individual who resides in Washington. This case involves a controversy that exceeds the value of $75,000. Therefore, this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
B. ISC has made sufficient allegations that Marshall committed tortious conduct through her website which caused injury to ISC’s business in Florida. Marshall’s affidavit is insufficient to rebut the claim. Therefore, there is jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute.
C. The minimum contacts must be purposeful contacts. Marshall’s website is equally accessible to persons in all states. Also the postings do not specifically mention Florida or its residents. Therefore, the tortious act would not sufficient to satisfy minimum contacts.
6. C = Conclusion
The court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. However, the case is dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction because there are not sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the principles of the Due Process Clause. Defendant’s motion granted and case