Jurisdiction Over E-Commerce Still a Mixed Bag, Court Says in Interstate Auto Sale Case
Online transactions now make up 11% of all retail transactions in the United States, Appellate Division Judge Jack Sabatino wrote in the ruling.
November 14, 2019 at 04:02 PM
5 minute read
A dispute over the online sale of a car by a California seller to a New Jersey buyer does not fall under the jurisdiction of New Jersey's court system, the Appellate Division ruled Thursday.
The seller's act of listing the car on automotive website Hemmings.com and his brief interactions with the buyer did not rise to the level of minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction under the due process clause, the appeals court ruled, upholding a 2018 decision by Superior Court Judge Mark Ciarrocca in Union County that dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Online transactions are becoming increasingly common, and now make up 11% of all retail transactions in the United States, Appellate Division Judge Jack Sabatino wrote in the ruling. But the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to resolve the issue of whether a nonresident defendant's "virtual" presence within a state via the internet can support a finding of personal jurisdiction in that forum, saying in a 2014 case that it would leave "questions about virtual contacts for another day." Nor has the state Supreme Court definitively addressed the issue, Sabatino said.
According to Thursday's decision in Jardim v. Overley, the present case stems from the purchase of a 1960 Buick Invicta convertible by a New Jersey man, Joseph Jardim, from a seller in California, Michael Overley. Jardim's business associate responded to Overley's online ad via email, and through a series of emails and phone calls, the parties reached a deal. The bill of sale did not include a forum selection clause. After Jardim had the car shipped to New Jersey, he discovered its condition was not as promised, he claimed in a suit filed against Overley in Union County Superior Court. He claims he spent tens of thousands of dollars to address various problems with the vehicle.
Ciarocca dismissed the case, finding no personal jurisdiction in the New Jersey court over Overley. The judge found that Overley had not actively solicited business in New Jersey, had not initiated contact with a party in New Jersey, had not agreed to a choice-of-law provision picking that state, had no prior relationships with New Jersey residents and had not traveled to New Jersey. Jardim appealed.
On Thursday, Sabatino, along with Appellate Division Judges Thomas Sumners Jr. and Richard Geiger, said that deciding whether Overley had a sufficient jurisdictional nexus to New Jersey would depend on whether the defendant "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state," or "purposefully directed" its conduct into a forum state.
The panel relied on a 1989 case from the state Supreme Court, Lebel v. Everglades Marina, which held that a New Jersey court had personal jurisdiction over a Florida man who sold a boat to a New Jersey resident. But in Lebel, the seller engaged in persistent attempts to induce the plaintiff to purchase the boat. That distinguishes it from the present case, where the seller had a "comparatively passive" role in the transaction after the parties agreed on a price for the Buick, Sabatino wrote. In addition, the present case was a one-time transaction. Overley maintained he never used the Hemmings website before, is not in the business of selling cars, and he and Jardim never did business together, Sabatino wrote for the court.
"Perhaps there may come a day in which Internet transactions become so dominant that buyers and sellers should be expected to anticipate, in the absence of an express forum selection clause, that they could be sued in the other contracting party's home state without limitation," Sabatino wrote.
"That day has not arrived and it is unclear what the future will actually bring. For the present, we are satisfied that the motion judge in this case fairly and correctly determined that the California seller's activities in this one-time transaction did not comprise 'purposeful availment,' sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him in our state court," Sabatino wrote for the court.
The lawyer for the seller, Jeremy Cole of Flaster Greenberg in Cherry Hill, noted that the Appellate Division "did not go so far as to say internet commerce cannot confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident seller."
"Rather, it recognized that internet commerce could confer personal jurisdiction, but ruled that the specific facts of this case, including the one-off nature of the transaction and the fact that Mr. Jardim arranged for the car at issue in the litigation to be shipped from California to New Jersey, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction," Cole said.
Cole added that "while this ruling should help protect one-off sellers in internet commerce who are not residents of New Jersey from being hauled [into] the New Jersey courts relating to their internet sales, businesses in New Jersey and elsewhere that conduct significant business online should consider including forum selection clauses in contracts to avoid lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions."
James Mackevich of Mackevich, Burke & Stanicki in Clark, who represented the car buyer, had no comment about the ruling.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuit Claims Amazon Violates Workers' Privacy With Unauthorized Medical Inquiries
5 minute readCalling It Unconstitutional, Companies Sued Over Daniel's Law Want It Struck Down
5 minute readToo Fast? Personal Injury Suit Puts Spotlight on Amazon's Delivery Quotas
4 minute read'Blatant Pretext': Class Action Claims Amazon Fired Employees for Taking FMLA Leave
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250