MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter
702 F.3d 725
2d Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff MacDermid, Inc. is a Connecticut company; Defendant Jackie Deiter lives in Ontario, Canada and worked for MacDermid Chemicals, Inc. in Canada as an account manager from May 2008 to April 2011.
- MacDermid stored proprietary data on servers in Waterbury, Connecticut, accessible only through those Waterbury servers.
- Deiter, just before termination, forwarded confidential MacDermid data from her MacDermid email to her personal email, which required accessing MacDermid’s Waterbury servers.
- MacDermid sued Deiter in federal court in Connecticut for unauthorized access and misappropriation of trade secrets, invoking diversity and Connecticut long-arm jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding Deiter did not use a Connecticut computer or network.
- The court reverses, holding that the Connecticut long-arm statute (§ 52-59b(a)(5)) reaches remote use of Connecticut computers and that due process is satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 52-59b(a)(5) reach remote CT computer use by a nonresident? | Deiter used CT servers to obtain data and email files. | No CT computer use occurred; no basis for long-arm. | Yes, CT long-arm reaches remote CT computer use. |
| Is jurisdiction under § 52-59b(a)(5) compatible with due process? | Minimum contacts via purposeful CT computer activities. | Defendant lacked sufficient ties to CT. | Jurisdiction is reasonable under due process. |
| Are CT servers within § 52-59b(a)(5) 'computers' for purposes of the statute? | Waterbury servers are computers under the statute. | Server location may not qualify. | CT servers meet the statute's definition of computer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (minimum contacts framework for jurisdiction in CT)
- Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1993) (prima facie jurisdiction when uncontroverted facts on motion to dismiss)
- Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd., 763 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1985) (affidavits required for jurisdictional facts; uncontroverted allegations treated as true)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and forum-related activities as a constitutional touchstone)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts directed at forum state support jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (five-factor test for reasonableness of jurisdiction)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2002) (jurisdictional reasonableness framework on appeal)
- Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., 175 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 1999) (burden and convenience considerations in jurisdictional analysis)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) (reasonableness considerations in jurisdictional analysis)