Lifestyle Lift Holding, Co., Inc. v. Prendiville
768 F. Supp. 2d 929
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- LLH owns U.S. Trademark No. 3,102,900 for the mark 'Lifestyle Lift' used nationwide in marketing cosmetic procedures.
- Prendiville is a Florida-based plastic surgeon in direct competition with LLH’s licensed Florida facilities.
- Prendiville posted statements about LLH and the 'Lifestyle Lift' procedure on RealSelf.com in February 2009, January 2010, and April 2010.
- LLH alleges the statements are false, defamatory, violate 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), and tortiously interfere with LLH’s business.
- LLH filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan; Prendiville moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- The court granted the motion, concluding Michigan lacked personal jurisdiction over Prendiville based on the internet postings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan long-arm/due process allows jurisdiction. | LLH asserts sufficient minimum contacts via internet activity. | Prendiville contends no purposeful availment or targeted Michigan contacts exist. | No personal jurisdiction; due process not satisfied. |
| Whether RealSelf postings created purposeful availment under Zippo. | RealSelf page is sufficiently interactive and targeted LLH. | Page is only modestly interactive; not targeted to Michigan. | Not sufficient; RealSelf activity not purposeful availment. |
| Whether the effects test supports jurisdiction. | Intentional defamation aimed at Michigan with injury felt there. | Injury not expressly aimed at Michigan; LLH has national presence. | Effects test not satisfied; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment requires substantial connection and reasonable foreseeability)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test; intentional torts may justify jurisdiction where brunt felt)
- Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2005) (due process and minimum contacts in limited jurisdiction)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (minimum contacts in internet-related cases)
- CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) (Zippo/interactivity framework for internet jurisdiction)