426 P.3d 1067
Alaska2018Background
- Harper, formerly an Alaska resident, sued New York corporations BioLife Energy Systems, Inc. and Linkup Media Group in Alaska state court for right of publicity, right of privacy, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages based on an allegedly false brochure story linking her to a cancer recovery.
- The brochure was published by BioLife and available on its website; Harper discovered it while working in Colorado for HoneyCombs, a Colorado manufacturer/distributor that processed BioLife orders.
- Defendants are New York corporations (Linkup allegedly the parent of BioLife); BioLife’s website allowed online purchases and listed all 50 states for shipping.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the superior court granted the motion, finding no general jurisdiction and that BioLife’s Alaska contacts did not relate to Harper’s noncommercial publicity/privacy claims.
- Harper sought reconsideration and jurisdictional discovery; the superior court denied both requests. Harper appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal.
Issues and Key Rulings
| Issue | Harper’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General (all‑purpose) jurisdiction | BioLife’s website sales and some shipments to Alaska suffice to subject it (and parent Linkup) to general jurisdiction in Alaska | Neither company is "at home" in Alaska; corporations are "at home" only at place of incorporation or principal place of business | No general jurisdiction — contacts with Alaska do not approach the continuous and systematic affiliations required to be "at home" here (Daimler standard) |
| Specific jurisdiction over BioLife (intentional torts/publicity & privacy claims) | Publication on BioLife’s website and awareness of Harper’s Alaska residency mean BioLife directed tortious conduct at Alaska | Publication and incidental website accessibility do not show purposeful direction at Alaska; alleged sales are unrelated to the publicity/privacy claims | No specific jurisdiction — Harper failed to show BioLife purposefully directed the brochure at Alaska or that tortious conduct had an Alaska focal connection (Calder/Walden analysis) |
| Specific jurisdiction over Linkup (parent company) | Linkup’s ownership/control of BioLife supports jurisdiction over Linkup | Harper alleged no independent contacts by Linkup with Alaska | No jurisdiction — Harper made no allegations tying Linkup itself to Alaska or to the challenged conduct |
| Jurisdictional discovery and place of injury | Harper urged discovery to develop Alaska‑related contacts and argued injury occurred in Alaska | Defendants opposed discovery and disputed Harper’s affidavits; court found facts disputed but irrelevant to legal nexus requirement | Denial of jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion because alleged facts, even if credited, would not establish the necessary connection between defendants’ Alaska contacts and Harper’s claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes "minimum contacts" due process test for jurisdiction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (forum jurisdiction where defendant continuously exploited market there for libel claims)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects" test: intentional torts expressly aimed at forum justify jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (limits all‑purpose jurisdiction to forums where defendant is "at home")
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (reaffirms narrow standard for general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (plaintiff’s forum connections alone are insufficient; defendant’s conduct must connect to forum)