Thorup v. Bitbox International, Inc.
1:24-cv-00056
| D. Utah | Jan 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, a Utah resident, sued Bitbox International, a Florida-based company selling Bitcoin ATMs, over an investment contract for four ATMs.
- Plaintiff alleged Bitbox failed to install functional ATMs and later required plaintiff to maintain and fund machines, contrary to initial representations.
- Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Utah federal court asserting contract, tort, and Utah state law claims after purportedly suffering losses due to the non-operational ATMs.
- Bitbox was served with the complaint but did not appear or respond, leading to plaintiff seeking default judgment and attorney’s fees.
- The matter before the court was plaintiff's motions for default judgment and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Bitbox | Bitbox purposefully directed business at Utah by soliciting plaintiff and communications | No appearance; arguments inferred from record | No personal jurisdiction; insufficient contacts with Utah |
| Minimum contacts for contract claims | Multiple communications with plaintiff in Utah; plaintiff's residency in Utah | No appearance | Communications and plaintiff’s residency alone insufficient for minimum contacts |
| Minimum contacts for tort claims | Bitbox intentionally misrepresented facts knowing plaintiff was in Utah | No appearance | No evidence that Bitbox targeted Utah or knew plaintiff’s location; harm occurred in Florida |
| Entry of default judgment | Bitbox failed to respond; default should be entered | No appearance | Default judgment cannot issue without personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (Due process for personal jurisdiction requires defendant’s conduct to be purposefully directed at the forum state)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (Limits of state court jurisdiction under due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (Out-of-state contract insufficient alone; looks to parties’ conduct and prior negotiations)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (Minimum contacts must exist between defendant and forum state)