527 F. App'x 108
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Arpaio filed suit in the District of New Jersey on July 11, 2008 seeking damages for invasion of privacy, misappropriation, defamation, and conspiracy against Mantra Films, MRA Holding, Francis, and Dupre.
- Default judgment was entered against Francis, MRA, and Mantra on April 5, 2010 after waivers of service were executed but an answer was never filed.
- Arpaio obtained a $3,000,000 damages award after a damages hearing.
- Defendants moved on March 2, 2012 to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect and Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The District Court denied the motion; on appeal, only Francis remains at issue due to automatic stay for MRA and Mantra in bankruptcy proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) void-judgment relief was misapplied as Rule 60(b)(1). | Arpaio argues 60(b)(4) governs void judgments, so lack of jurisdiction should be treated separately. | Francis contends the district court analyzed 60(b)(4) under the 60(b)(1) framework. | Yes; the district court erred by applying the 60(b)(1) rubric to 60(b)(4). |
| Whether the district court properly found personal jurisdiction over Francis. | Arpaio contends specific jurisdiction exists based on Francis’s NJ-directed activities. | Francis argues there are insufficient ties linking him to the New Jersey forum and the video to Francis. | The district court lacked sufficient record support for specific jurisdiction over Francis; remand for further findings. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted on remand. | Arpaio seeks jurisdictional discovery to connect Francis’s contacts to the New Jersey claim. | Francis argues discovery may be appropriate but not presumed; record insufficient. | Remand allows district court to determine if jurisdictional discovery is appropriate. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. | Yes; vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)(4) void-judgment standard; distinctions from 60(b)(1))
- Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., 149 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1998) (long-arm and due-process considerations for jurisdiction)
- Telcordia Tech Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., 458 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2006) (minimum contacts and forum-state analysis under due process)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts and fair play standard)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (purposeful availment and relatedness in jurisdictional analysis)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (individual defendant's contacts assessed separately in jurisdiction)
- Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (purposeful direction; internet presence and jurisdictional implications)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (internet presence and jurisdictional analysis)