Giduck v. Niblett, 2014 COA 86

Giduck and Nicoletti are Colorado residents; Archangel Group, Ltd. conducted or attempted to conduct his business.
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants for defamation and related torts based on internet postings on socnet.com and other sites.
Amended complaint listed approximately 174 statements by specific defendants; district court granted dismissals against several foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and against Martin for lack of defamation claim.
The district court held that the foreign defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Colorado and that the defamation statements attributed to Martin were constitutionally protected opinion.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge personal jurisdiction, the scope of the defamation ruling as to Martin, and the dismissal of claims three through twelve; the court affirmed, with discussion of waiver and procedural issues.
The court awarded attorney fees to the defense and remanded for an amount of fees to be determined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants	Giduck contends there were sufficient contacts with Colorado.	Defendants argue no minimum contacts were established by their own actions.	No personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants; dismissal affirmed.
Whether Martin's defamation statements were actionable	Martin's statements harmed Giduck's reputation in Colorado.	The statements were protected opinion and non-actionable.	Statements were protected opinion; Martin dismissed.
Whether claims three through twelve were properly dismissed as a sanction for failure to specify defendants	Plaintiffs amended but did not tie each claim to a defendant; sanction appropriate.	Failure to tie to specific defendants warrants dismissal.	Affirmed dismissal of claims three through twelve as to lack of specific defendants; majority view.
Whether the foreign defendants waived personal jurisdiction by litigation activity	Counterclaims could waive jurisdictional defenses by active participation.	Counterclaims do not automatically waive jurisdiction; preservation issue.	Counterclaim defendants did not waive personal jurisdiction; defense preserved.

Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (requires defendant to create meaningful connections with forum)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts for in personam jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (defendant must create contacts with the forum)
Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320 (1980) (forum contacts cannot be decided solely by plaintiff's contacts)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (forum state's jurisdiction limited by traditional notions of fair play)
Gognat v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo.App. 2009) (conspiracy-based jurisdiction requires acts in Colorado by a Colorado-resident defendant)
Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Arkhangelskgeoldobycha, 123 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2005) (long-arm and due process considerations in Colorado)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (defamatory statements must be interpreted by their factual content)
Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1994) (context and tone affect whether statements are actionable as opinion)
Fry v. Lee, 2013 COA 100 (Colo. App. 2013) (ancillary defamation claims may be dismissed when defamation claim is dismissed)