Consider the following scenario: A buyer in New York purchases an expensive vacation package from the Web site of a broker working as an agent for a Florida-based hospitality company (the Seller). Neither the broker nor the seller has an office in New York or anywhere outside of Florida. The buyer claims that the vacation package was not as advertised and sues the seller in New York for breach of contract and fraud. The defendant, Seller, moves to dismiss the claim based on the New York court’s lack personal jurisdiction.
Will the motion prevail? Unfortunately for the defendant, this motion will probably fail. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent holding in Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC,1 has added some clarity to what an article published in this journal last year described as a “muddled” area of jurisprudence.2 In so doing, the Second Circuit brought federal case law in New York in line with the holdings of state courts that allow long-arm jurisdiction based upon sales to New Yorkers through a defendant’s out-of-state Web site.3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
