Abdouch v. Lopez
285 Neb. 718
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Abdouch, a Nebraska resident, sued Lopez and KLB (Massachusetts) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-202 for privacy invasion connected to an online advertisement using Abdouch’s inscription.
- Lopez owns KLB, a rare-book business operating online from Massachusetts; KLB has minimal Nebraska presence and no Nebraska registration or offices.
- KLB’s website is interactive; it allows browsing and purchasing, and KLB has mailed catalogs to two Nebraska residents; total Nebraska sales were minor ($614.87) out of ~$3.9 million.
- Abdouch’s allegations stem from a 1963 inscription by author Richard Yates and a web advertisement that allegedly linked Abdouch to Yates, broadcasting internationally for over three years.
- Lopez and KLB moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted the motion; Abdouch appeals, arguing minimum contacts and targeting of Nebraska.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska has personal jurisdiction over Lopez and KLB | Lopez/KLB active, targeted ads injure Abdouch in Nebraska | Contacts are random, attenuated, and not purposefully directed at Nebraska | No; insufficient minimum contacts and no purposeful direction |
| Whether the long-arm statute and due process permit specific jurisdiction | Statutory reach plus Calder/Zippo framework show jurisdiction | Long-arm statute not satisfied; no due process contact | No; long-arm satisfied only to the extent of due process requires minimum contacts present |
| Whether Calder effects or Zippo sliding-scale applies to establish jurisdiction | Advertised inscription targeted Abdouch to Nebraska | advertisement global; no targeted Nebraska harm | No; Calder effects not established; Zippo site activity not aimed at Nebraska; insufficient nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (sliding-scale framework for internet jurisdiction; not standalone)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional, expressly aimed at forum state; brunt felt there)
- Quality Pork Internat. v. Rupari Food Servs., 267 Neb. 474 (Neb. 2004) (guides traditional jurisdiction analysis; not automatic online reach)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (illustrates internet jurisdiction considerations)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) (applies Calder-like analysis to online defamation)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (analyzed broad online reach vs. targeted forum for Calder)