Chen v. US Sports Academy, Inc.
956 F.3d 45
| 1st Cir. | 2020Background
- USSA is an Alabama-incorporated and headquartered institution offering an online Distance Learning Program; it awards graduate degrees and operates an interactive online learning platform.
- Chen enrolled in USSA's doctoral program in 2008, switched from a comprehensive exam to a portfolio requirement, completed most work, then at some point moved to Massachusetts after 2010.
- In 2016 Chen tried to reenroll and later discovered his portfolio had been deleted and USSA required a comprehensive exam; he alleges lost time, tuition, and income opportunities.
- Chen sued in Massachusetts state court asserting breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and unfair/deceptive practices; USSA removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court (applying the prima facie standard) denied both general and specific jurisdiction and relied on an affidavit from USSA president Rosandich; Chen appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed: it found no general jurisdiction (Massachusetts is not USSA’s home) and no specific jurisdiction (USSA did not purposefully avail itself of Massachusetts with respect to Chen).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chen) | Defendant's Argument (USSA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction: whether USSA is "essentially at home" in MA | USSA’s pervasive online presence and students in MA render it subject to general jurisdiction there | USSA is incorporated/principal place of business in Alabama; limited/ sporadic contacts with MA (no office, no taxes, only two non-degree students) | No general jurisdiction; MA is neither USSA's state of incorporation nor its principal place of business and contacts are not so substantial to render USSA "at home" |
| Specific jurisdiction: whether Chen's claims arise from USSA’s MA contacts and whether USSA purposefully availed itself | USSA solicits MA students via its website and operates an interactive platform Chen used from MA; tuition payments and emails tie the dispute to MA | Website is informational/accessible everywhere; no evidence USSA targeted MA or knew Chen was in MA when dealing with him | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff’s activities were unilateral and there is no evidence USSA knew of or targeted Chen in MA |
| Admissibility of Rosandich affidavit | Affidavit is extraneous and should not have been relied on pre-discovery | Affidavit is a proper undisputed jurisdictional proffer under the prima facie standard | Affidavit properly considered; Chen offered no counter-evidence, did not move to strike, nor request discovery |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Lack of discovery renders affidavit unchecked and unfair | Chen never sought jurisdictional discovery or moved for a hearing | No relief; failure to request discovery or to raise objections below forecloses appellate complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established "minimum contacts" due process test)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishes general jurisdiction and the "essentially at home" standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (refined general jurisdiction; home = state of incorporation or principal place of business except in exceptional cases)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402 (reaffirmed limits on general jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles for specific jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (stream-of-commerce / "plus" factors discussion on purposeful availment)
- Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.) (prima facie approach and standards for considering jurisdictional facts)
- Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing mere website accessibility from deliberate target and purposeful availment)
- PREP Tours, Inc. v. Am. Youth Soccer Org., 913 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (treatment of defendant’s undisputed jurisdictional facts and purposeful availment analysis)