Huizenga v. Gwynn
225 F. Supp. 3d 647
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- Plaintiff Dr. Robert Huizenga, a Los Angeles-based physician and TV consultant, sued the New York Post (N.Y.P. Holdings) for libel and business-interference based on three May 2016 articles about The Biggest Loser that included allegedly false statements about him.
- The Post is a New York-based publisher whose content targets a primarily New York readership; it publishes print, digital (via third-party vendors), and free website content.
- The Post does not offer retail or home-delivery print distribution in Michigan; only 10 Michigan residents receive mailed print subscriptions and ~227 Michigan residents subscribe to the Post’s digital edition via third-party platforms; Michigan web visitors accounted for a small percentage of page views.
- The Post’s reporters interviewed a former Biggest Loser contestant, Joelle Gwynn, who is a Michigan resident; the articles quoted her but did not mention Michigan or her residency.
- The Post moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)); the Court held a hearing and dismissed the claims against the Post without prejudice, finding jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the Post for libel based on publication | Huizenga: Post purposefully availed itself of Michigan by delivering copies (mail and digital) and reaching Michigan readers (including contacting a Michigan source), so Michigan is a proper forum | Post: circulation in Michigan is de minimis, Post has no physical presence or targeted solicitation in Michigan, and it could not reasonably anticipate being sued here | Dismissed: Court found assertion of specific jurisdiction unreasonable under Southern Machine/Keeton analysis and denied jurisdiction over the Post |
| Whether purposeful availment is established by the Post’s subscriptions, digital sales through third parties, and website access by Michigan residents | Huizenga: subscriptions, digital sales, and high website traffic show ongoing contacts and purposeful availment | Post: few Michigan subscribers, digital sales are via third parties, website is passive and accessible everywhere, and no targeted Michigan outreach | Not decided definitively for purposefully availing—the Court assumed the question close but ruled jurisdiction unreasonable on other grounds |
| Whether Keeton (substantial circulation) supports jurisdiction here | Huizenga: Keeton supports jurisdiction because the Post published the allegedly libelous article and dealt with a Michigan source | Post: Keeton requires substantial, deliberate penetration of the forum market; Post’s Michigan circulation is far below Keeton’s levels and its audience is primarily New York | Held: Keeton requires substantial circulation aimed at the forum; Post’s Michigan circulation is far too small and Post is not a national paper, so Keeton does not support jurisdiction |
| Whether Calder (the "effects" test) permits jurisdiction because the Post relied on a Michigan source | Huizenga: Calder permits jurisdiction because the article drew from a Michigan source and caused reputational harm felt in Michigan | Post: Article did not concern Michigan activities, did not mention Michigan, and the brunt of alleged harm was in California where Huizenga practices | Held: Calder inapplicable—Post did not expressly aim tortious conduct at Michigan and Huizenga’s reputational injury is centered in California; Calder does not support jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts due process standard)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (jurisdiction reasonable where publisher had substantial circulation in the forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects" test: jurisdiction where defendants expressly aimed tortious conduct at forum and brunt of harm felt there)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir.) (three-part specific-jurisdiction test: purposeful availment, cause-of-action nexus, reasonableness)
- Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff's burden to establish personal jurisdiction; prima facie case standard when no evidentiary hearing)