The state Superior Court has ruled that a Bucks County trial court lacked the personal jurisdiction required to decide a lawsuit against a Virginia-based steel company, despite the plaintiff's argument that the company's website was enough to establish ties to Pennsylvania.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Ann Lazarus, Maria McLaughlin, and Kate Ford Elliott affirmed the Bucks County judge's decision that defendant Steel Services Inc. had no connection to Pennsylvania. In doing so, the court dismissed plaintiffs Goe International and Richard Coppola's appeal of the dismissal of his complaint.

“Steel Services is a company with a principal place of business in Virginia. After viewing Steel Services' website, appellants called Steel Services in Virginia to purchase steel products. Appellants purchased the steel products by credit card payment over the telephone. Steel Services shipped the merchandise from its place of business in Virginia to appellants' job site, also in Virginia. Steel Services does not have an office or bank account in Pennsylvania. It does not have a Pennsylvania telephone number and is not registered in Pennsylvania as a foreign corporation,” McLaughlin wrote in the court's opinion.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the Bucks County court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and refusing to allow discovery.

Coppola maintained that the court had jurisdiction based on Steel Services' website.

“The website is insufficient to provide general jurisdiction to Pennsylvania courts. There is nothing of record to suggest that Steel Services has a presence in Pennsylvania, its website generated a significant source of income from Pennsylvania, or that it was 'essentially at home' in Pennsylvania,” McLaughlin said.

She added, “Further, there is no other information of record, beyond the website, that would permit a finding of general or specific jurisdiction. Coppola has not shown that Steel Services has any continuous and systematic contacts with Pennsylvania sufficient to confer general jurisdiction. In addition, the trial court concluded Pennsylvania lacked specific jurisdiction, reasoning that 'none of [Steel Services] purported acts giving rise to the underlying causes of action occurred in Pennsylvania.' It noted the only contact between the parties was communication by telephone and writing, and Coppola called the company's place of business in Virginia and requested that the products be shipped to a jobsite in Virginia. The trial court's findings are supported by the record, and its holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction was not error or an abuse of discretion.”

As for the discovery issue, McLaughlin said Coppola never sought discovery in the case. Therefore, she said, the issue was waived.

Coppola, who represented himself in the case, said, “I obviously disagree with the decision of the court.”

The court, he said, “really ignored all of the case law that plaintiffs cited. So instead of appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we're going to sue the defendant in Virginia.”

Steel Services' attorney, Doylestown-based H. Jeffrey Brahin, said, “it was pretty clear that Pennsylvania had absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever over my client. My client was a Virginia-based company. We feel that the plaintiffs' continued push for jurisdiction was frivolous.”

(Copies of the eight-page opinion in Coppola v. Steel Services, PICS No. 19-0118, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)