280 F. Supp. 3d 287
D. Mass.2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Théberge, a blind Massachusetts resident who uses screen-reader software, alleges Otter Products’ websites are inaccessible and prevented him from purchasing products.
- Théberge attempted to access Otter’s websites from Massachusetts and plans future attempts; he alleges buttons and labels on the sites are incompatible with screen readers.
- Otter Products is headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado, sells directly to consumers via two websites (otterbox.com and lifeproof.com), has one Massachusetts-based employee (field marketing representative), and registered to do business in Massachusetts.
- Approximately 2% of Otter’s online sales in 2017 were to Massachusetts customers (about $20 million); websites are managed from Colorado and California.
- Procedurally: Otter moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue (or transfer to Colorado). The court dismissed the out-of-state plaintiffs without prejudice, denied dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as to Théberge, and denied venue dismissal/transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under Mass. long-arm statute (transacting business) | Théberge: Otter transacts business in MA via website sales, registration, local rep; injury occurred in MA from website inaccessibility | Otter: Limited sales in MA; website testing is not a "transaction"; contacts insufficient | Held: Long-arm satisfied — transacting business (2% sales, registration, MA rep); injury arose from MA contacts |
| Due Process (specific jurisdiction — relatedness & purposeful availment) | Théberge: Claim arises from Otter’s forum activities (website), Otter purposefully targeted MA customers | Otter: Websites managed outside MA; contacts too attenuated to make jurisdiction foreseeable | Held: Due process satisfied — relatedness, purposeful availment, and Gestalt reasonableness factors support jurisdiction |
| Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 | Théberge: Substantial part of events (attempts to access website; injury) occurred in this district | Otter: Relevant operations and website management are in Colorado | Held: Venue proper in District of Massachusetts because access attempts and injury occurred there |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Théberge: Plaintiff’s chosen forum should be respected; transfer would disproportionately burden a blind, in-state plaintiff | Otter: Convenience of witnesses and that key operations are in Colorado favor transfer | Held: Transfer denied — presumption for plaintiff’s forum, transfer would merely shift inconvenience and unduly burden plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir.) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional factual determinations)
- A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.) (plaintiff’s evidentiary burden on prima facie showing for jurisdiction)
- Adelson v. Hananel, 610 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.) (accept plaintiff’s properly documented proffers and construe in plaintiff’s favor)
- United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080 (1st Cir.) (broad construction of "transacting any business")
- Cossart v. United Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.) (long-arm and purposeful availment analysis; examples of contacts satisfying transacting prong)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S.) (specific jurisdiction: suit must arise out of or relate to defendant’s forum contacts)
- Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.) (Gestalt reasonableness factors and purposeful availment guidance)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S.) (affiliation between forum and underlying controversy requirement)