18 F.4th 783
5th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Admar Int’l, Inc. sued Eastrock, LLC (a Wisconsin company) for copyright and trade-dress infringement based on product images displayed on Eastrock’s website.
- The accused products appear on Eastrock’s site and on Amazon, Target, and BuyBuyBaby; Eastrock delivers to distribution centers but has not sold or shipped the accused products directly to Louisiana residents via its website.
- Eastrock has no offices, sales agents, stores, or business license in Louisiana and does not run advertising targeted specifically to Louisiana.
- Under a drop-ship arrangement with BuyBuyBaby, Eastrock shipped one accused product to a Louisiana resident; otherwise there are no Louisiana-directed transactions.
- Eastrock moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the magistrate judge and the district court granted dismissal, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit considered whether Eastrock’s interactive, nationally accessible website sufficed to establish specific personal jurisdiction in Louisiana.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Eastrock based on its website and related contacts | Eastrock operates an interactive website that displays, advertises, and offers the accused products nationwide; targeting the U.S. includes Louisiana | Mere website accessibility is insufficient; Eastrock has no Louisiana offices, agents, targeted ads, or repeated contracts/sales in Louisiana (only one isolated drop-ship) | No specific jurisdiction: website accessibility alone does not show purposeful availment or targeting of Louisiana; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (due-process minimum-contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability in jurisdiction analysis)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (sliding-scale test for website interactivity and jurisdiction)
- Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012) (website accessibility alone insufficient; focus on targeting)
- Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) (specific vs. general jurisdiction framework)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (rejecting jurisdiction from online publication not directed at forum)
- be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) (interactive website accessible nationwide does not alone create jurisdiction)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (website maintenance alone does not subject owner to jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (mere accessibility of websites does not establish minimum contacts)