2012 Va. Cir. LEXIS 101
Alexandria Cir. Ct.2012Background
- Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. seeks to compel Yelp to disclose identities of John Does via subpoena duces tecum served on Yelp's Virginia registered agent.
- Yelp objects on jurisdiction, First Amendment protections for anonymous speakers, and overbreadth; third objection resolved at hearing, so court need not address it.
- Virginia service statutes authorize service on foreign corporations via registered agent when authorized to transact business in Virginia; otherwise long-arm jurisdiction applies.
- Virginia case law (Bellis) recognizes subpoena directed to a witness as process; service on Yelp's Virginia agent provides jurisdiction here.
- Court cites Yelp's Virginia-directed conduct and relationships with Virginia entities to support jurisdiction beyond the agent alone (ALS Scan standard).
- Court applies Va. Code § 8.01-407.1 to determine that the anonymous statements may be tortious and that identifying John Does is essential to the defamation claim; UIDDA is available but not exclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over Yelp | Hadeed asserts valid service on Yelp's Virginia agent; conduct in Virginia supports jurisdiction. | Yelp contends no jurisdiction absent proper basis; advertising agreement favors California forum. | Jurisdiction exists; service on Virginia agent and Yelp's Virginia conduct suffice. |
| Whether anonymity of speakers may be pierced under First Amendment and Virginia statute | Subpoena complies with Va. Code § 8.01-407.1 and identifies tortious statements essential to defamation claim. | Anonymous speakers enjoy protection; constitutional requirements require scrutiny before disclosure. | Statutory and constitutional standards satisfied; identities may be disclosed. |
| Whether UIDDA exclusivity limits discovery against a foreign corporation | UIDDA provides an avenue but is not exclusive; other lawful methods exist. | UIDDA is the sole route for foreign entities. | UIDDA is not exclusive; alternative avenues remain available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellis v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 257, 402 S.E.2d 211 (1991) (subpoena directed to a witness is process)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction based on defendant's conduct and relationships in forum state)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (establishes sliding-scale for personal jurisdiction in internet disputes)
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (anonymous or false speech protected less than truthful or political speech)
- America Online, Inc. v. Nam Tai Elecs., Inc., 264 Va. 583, 571 S.E.2d 128 (2002) (limits on anonymous identity revelation; defamation context)
- Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (broad protection for certain speech rights in defamation context)
- Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112, 335 S.E.2d 97 (1985) (defamation considerations in anonymous communications)