2018 Ohio 2422
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 the American Psychological Association (APA) hired Sidley Austin LLP (with partner David Hoffman) to investigate allegations concerning the APA’s role in interrogation policies; Sidley interviewed 148 witnesses and reviewed a large document set.
- Six interviewees were Ohio residents; two interviews occurred in Ohio. The final Report was posted publicly (including on the APA website) in July 2015.
- Five plaintiffs (former APA-affiliated psychologists) sued the APA, Sidley-Austin, and Hoffman in Montgomery County, Ohio, for defamation and false light based on the Report’s content (filed Feb. 16, 2017).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (and raised forum non conveniens and D.C. anti-SLAPP arguments); the trial court granted dismissal, concluding jurisdiction would violate due process.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued the trial court should have exercised specific personal jurisdiction under Ohio law because defendants purposefully availed themselves of Ohio by publishing the Report, soliciting Ohio cooperation, and using Ohio board members; they also relied on agency attribution of Sidley’s contacts to the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the APA for defamation arising from the Report | APA published Report accessible in Ohio; knew publication would injure Ohio residents; solicited cooperation from Ohio witnesses; Ohio board members; agency attribution of Sidley’s contacts | Publication accessible nationwide is not purposeful targeting of Ohio; only limited Ohio contacts (6 of 148 witnesses, 2 in-person interviews); plaintiffs’ reputations centered mostly outside Ohio; mere foreseeability insufficient | No specific jurisdiction over APA; publication and limited Ohio contacts do not show purposeful availment under due process |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims "arise from" defendants’ Ohio activities | Plaintiffs: tort of libel occurs where circulated; report publication in Ohio ties claims to Ohio activities | Defendants: Report’s subject, sources, and harm are largely centered outside Ohio; pre-publication acts in Ohio were isolated | Claims did not sufficiently arise from APA’s Ohio activities; second Southern Machine factor not met |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable | Plaintiffs: Ohio has interest; plaintiffs want reputational repair here; defendants could litigate here without undue burden | Defendants: contacts too attenuated; fairness/practicality weights against jurisdiction | Court did not reach detailed balancing because first two factors fail; reasonableness not satisfied given lack of purposeful contacts |
| Whether Sidley-Austin and Hoffman are subject to jurisdiction (including via agency imputation to APA) | Plaintiffs: Sidley’s investigative acts (including Ohio interviews) are attributable to APA, supporting jurisdiction | Defendants: agency/contact attribution insufficient to create purposeful Ohio contacts; same due-process limits apply | No jurisdiction over Sidley-Austin and Hoffman; appellate court affirmed dismissal as to them as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (a defendant’s actions are subject to jurisdiction where they are expressly aimed at the forum and the forum is the focal point of the harm)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (libel may be actionable in any forum where the publication is circulated if defendant has sufficient contacts)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (due process requires minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment, cause of action arises from forum contacts, and reasonableness)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction and applies due-process analysis)
- Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir. 1998) (purposeful availment finding is dispositive when absent)