994 F. Supp. 2d 77
D.D.C.2013Background
- Shaheen owns a copyright for an article and alleges the defendants copied and posted it online without permission.
- Defendants are Charles J. Smith and How2GoPublic.com, based in Nevada; allegedly sufficient contacts with DC are disputed.
- Plaintiff filed suit in DC federal court; defendant was served in Nevada; default entered when no responsive pleading was filed.
- Court ordered Show Cause for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiff argued DC contacts existed.
- Court concluded it lacked DC personal jurisdiction, declined jurisdictional discovery, and transferred venue to Nevada.
- Case posture: copyright infringement claim; rulings include no jurisdictional basis and transfer instead of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC has personal jurisdiction under DC long-arm § 13-423(a)(3) | Shaheen argues injury occurred in DC due to infringement here | Smith/How2GoPublic.com contend no act and injury occurred in DC | No personal jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(3) |
| Whether DC has personal jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(4) (government contacts) | Plaintiff asserts SEC/FINRA interactions establish contacts | Contacts with government agencies do not alone establish jurisdiction; fraud/first-amendment considerations apply | No jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(4) |
| Whether DC has personal jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(1)-(2) (transacting business or contracting to supply services) | Defendants transact business in DC through meetings, advertising, clients | Evidence insufficient; no demonstrated client base or DC-based transactions; SEC interactions fall outside scope | No jurisdiction under § 13-423(a)(1)-(2) |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should be allowed | Discovery could supplement jurisdictional allegations | No detailed showing of how discovery would yield jurisdictional facts | Jurisdictional discovery denied |
| Whether the case should be transferred to Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) | N/A | N/A | Case transferred to the District of Nevada |
Key Cases Cited
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2011) (addressing situs of injury in online copyright cases)
- GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (two-part test for personal jurisdiction under long-arm statute; minimum contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (minimum contacts must render jurisdiction reasonable)
- Envtl. Research Int'l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Eng’rs, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (D.C. 1976) (government contacts principle background)
- Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368 (D.C. 1978) (tension between government contacts and First Amendment)
- Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio v. Applied Indus. Materials Corp., 35 A.3d 1127 (D.C. 2012) (fraud exception to government contacts principle; rare application)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (discussion of government contacts doctrine post-Rose)
- Berwyn Fuel, Inc. v. Hogan, 399 A.2d 79 (D.C. 1979) (limits of § 13-423(b) to claims arising from district transactions)