Shrader v. Biddinger
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3797
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Greg Shrader, proceeding pro se, filed a tort action (defamation, false-light, IIED, conspiracy) against three groups: Beann/Wave59, Stewart and related entities, and Al Biddinger; none reside in Oklahoma, where suit was filed.
- The alleged defamation stemmed from an email about Shrader’s split with Stewart, which Stewart drafted; Biddinger posted the email on Wave59, and the Beann defendants did not promptly remove it.
- Most defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Shrader sought a second amendment, which the district court denied for procedural and substantive reasons.
- Three district court dismissal orders were entered; Wave59’s dismissal followed, and Shrader’s appeals were filed in Nos. 10-7004 and 10-7015, with the latter subsuming the former.
- The court examined general and specific jurisdiction, focusing on Internet-context practice, and concluded Shrader could not establish personal jurisdiction over any defendant.
- The court ultimately affirmed dismissal (and dismissed Appeal No. 10-7004 as moot) while denying Shrader’s motion to file exhibits, and declined transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beann/Wave59 are subject to personal jurisdiction | Beann/Wave59 directed defamation via forum post; forum’s reach allegedly harmed Shrader in Oklahoma. | Wave59 forum was globally accessible and lacked Oklahoma-specific targeting; no substantial connection to Oklahoma. | No general or specific jurisdiction over Beann/Wave59. |
| Whether Stewart defendants have general or specific jurisdiction | Stewart had ongoing Oklahoma-based business relations with Shrader and visited Oklahoma; potential for jurisdiction. | Contacts were insufficient for general jurisdiction and the email defamation lacked Oklahoma targeting for specific jurisdiction. | No general jurisdiction; no specific jurisdiction based on defaming email directed at Oklahoma. |
| Whether Biddinger has specific jurisdiction for posting the allegedly defamatory email on Wave59 | Biddinger posted to a forum with some Oklahoma recipients; deliberate targeting could establish jurisdiction. | Post targeted a broad trading audience with no Oklahoma focus; no evidence that Biddinger knew recipients were in Oklahoma. | No specific personal jurisdiction over Biddinger. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying amendment | Amendment would reform pleadings to address jurisdictional posture; not futile. | Noncompliance with local rule (conferral requirement) and futility concerns supported denial. | No abuse of discretion; district court’s denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (three Calder-based factors for purposeful direction; 'arising out of' analysis)
- Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) (long-arm statute and due-process framework in Oklahoma)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (express aiming and forum-centered harm standard for specific jurisdiction)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (internet activity: targeted directing into the forum required for jurisdiction)
- Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (internet postings require targeting forum state audience for jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) (posting on the internet alone does not establish jurisdiction)
- Smith v. Basin Park Hotel, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (N.D. Okla. 2001) (general jurisdiction requires sustained, substantial local business activity)