983 N.W.2d 134
Neb.2023Background
- Plaintiff Shawn Wheelbarger, Nebraska trucking business owner, alleged defective engine-control-module (ECM) software installed by Nebraska mechanic Newcomb caused extensive damage and losses for four trucks (Dec 2013–May 2016).
- Michigan defendants Detroit Diesel ECM, LLC and Mike Rodriguez (doing business as M & C) acted as an online "middleman" connecting mechanics to third-party software designers; they re‑invoiced mechanics, collected a commission, and remitted payment to the designer.
- Rodriguez’s affidavit stated Michigan defendants had no office, property, employees, or continuous revenue in Nebraska; contact with Newcomb began via their website (first contact July 2014, last March 2016).
- Newcomb’s interrogatory response said it purchased and received the tuning software from M & C remotely over the internet.
- The district court dismissed Michigan defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Wheelbarger argued the Nebraska Supreme Court should find specific jurisdiction based on repeated, facilitator role and electronic delivery.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: Michigan defendants’ intermediary, commission‑collecting role and limited, attenuated internet contacts did not constitute purposeful availment sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Michigan defendants for Wheelbarger's products‑liability claims | Wheelbarger: M & C repeatedly facilitated and billed for software sent to Newcomb (multiple transactions), establishing purposeful availment and a substantial connection to Nebraska | Detroit Diesel/M & C: acted only as passive intermediary via website, no physical presence, no direct negotiations with Wheelbarger, contacts too attenuated for jurisdiction | Held: No. Contacts were too limited/attenuated; intermediary role did not create minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction |
| Whether the Zippo internet interactivity test was decisive here | Wheelbarger: Court of Appeals overemphasized passivity of website; repeated transactions require jurisdiction | Defendants: Website/passive role and lack of direct dealings defeat jurisdiction | Held: Zippo is a starting point but analysis must focus on quality/nature of defendant’s activities; here those activities were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due process benchmark)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and fair warning analysis)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (sliding‑scale internet jurisdiction interactivity test)
- Abdouch v. Lopez, 285 Neb. 718 (Nebraska application of internet/jurisdiction principles)
- VKGS v. Planet Bingo, 285 Neb. 599 (specific jurisdiction from protracted, deliberate business contacts)
- RFD‑TV v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318 (limited successor/predecessor dealings insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Miller v. Berman, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (intermediary/broker online contact held insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Crete Carrier Corp. v. Red Food Stores, 254 Neb. 323 (ongoing contractual dealings and numerous contacts support jurisdiction)