57 F. Supp. 3d 345
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Alvin S. Brown (pro se), a New York resident and tax practitioner, alleges Web.com deleted a long‑standing website and its data (the OIC site), causing loss of referrals and most of his income.
- Plaintiff registered the domain in 1998; the site remained hosted through successors until its deletion in late 2013 after a billing dispute and chargeback.
- Web.com is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida; it provides nationwide web‑hosting and marketing services via its website and emailed solicitations and has a small number of New York employees and customers.
- In 2011 Web.com implemented a Master Service Agreement (clickwrap) containing a mandatory forum‑selection clause requiring litigation only in Duval County, Florida; evidence indicates Plaintiff (or an account agent) accepted those terms in 2011.
- Plaintiff pleads negligence, conversion, tortious interference, and breach of contract; Web.com moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)) and improper venue under the forum‑selection clause (12(b)(3)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY courts have general jurisdiction over Web.com | Web.com does substantial business with NY customers; has NY employees and contacts | Web.com is incorporated in DE and headquartered in FL; no NY offices or assets | Not essentially at home in NY; general jurisdiction denied |
| Whether specific jurisdiction/long‑arm applies (CPLR §302) | Deletion of site caused injury in NY (loss of NY customers/income) and Web.com transacts business with NY via its website and solicitations | Contacts are internet‑based and insufficient to support NY jurisdiction | §302(a)(1) satisfied: Web.com transacts business in NY via interactive commercial website and directed contacts; personal jurisdiction proper |
| Whether exercise of jurisdiction comports with Due Process | Plaintiff emphasizes Web.com’s purposeful availment of NY market and communications | Enforcement is reasonable given Web.com’s NY‑directed activities; defendant bears no compelling unreasonableness showing | Due process satisfied; exercising jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Whether forum‑selection clause requires dismissal for improper venue | Clause claimed integral and void if contract frustrated by deletion; enforcement would be unjust or burdensome | Clause was reasonably communicated (clickwrap), mandatory, covers these claims, and is enforceable | Forum‑selection clause enforceable; dismissal for improper venue granted (suit must be in Duval County, FL) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be "essentially at home" in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (restrictions on general jurisdiction over foreign corporations)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and fair play standards for due process)
- Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) (§302(a)(1) transaction plus nexus requirement and overlap with due process)
- Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007) (four‑part test for enforcing forum‑selection clauses)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off‑Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (forum‑selection clauses prima facie valid and enforceable)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (spectrum of website interactivity for jurisdictional analysis)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (situs‑of‑injury test under §302(a)(3))