Judgment? I thought it was 'judgement.'

This is what I do all day, every day.
(Oh yea, this is 1 of 5 tonight alone. My briefs tend to be as long as the case itself. Note I was able to throw in a Top Gun reference in there. Do you care enough to read it all?)


COASTAL VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. STAYWELL CORP.
59 F. Supp. 2d 565 (E.D. Va. 1999)

Facts:
Krames Communications [and Staywell] move to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(2)

And π’s move for discovery on issue of personal jurisdiction.

• ∏’s motion for discovery granted (with guidelines), and Δ’s motion to dismiss is taken under advisement pending the outcome of the granted limited discovery.

Π (Coastal Video Comm.) is VA company that makes employee handbooks/videos/ training materials/etc. and sells throughout U.S. Product in question is, “Defending Your Safety Zone: Back Protection.”

Δ (Krames) is DE corp. with principle business in CA, making patient education, health promotion, safety and injury prevention training materials. One of which is, “Safety Zone: Using Natural Limits to Protect Your Back,” and has copyright.

Feb. 1999 Coastal files instant action in VA seeking declaration that their publication does not infringe on copyrighted material published by Krames. In April 1999 instant motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was filed.

Coastal claims court has personal jurisdiction over Krames.
o Krames sells its products to people all over (50 counties and 6 continents)
o 70% of hospitals in U.S., including 3 in VA
o Sold to VA in the past and currently
o Mailed catalogues to VA in 1998
o Krames qualified to do business in VA, and has representative there
o Business is over the WWW
o *Separate site for STAYWELL
o Staywell distributed to 1300 American Red Cross local chapters
o Site lists job opportunities and allows applications

Holding:
∏’s motion for discovery granted (with guidelines), and Δ’s motion to dismiss is taken under advisement pending the outcome of the granted limited discovery.

Reasoning/Analysis
Specific Jurisdiction
To argue specific jurisdiction, Coastal cites VA statute; “a court may exercise jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising form the person’s… [t]ransacting any business in this Commonwealth[.]” Va. Code Ann. §8.01-328.1
Π says sale of “Safety Zone” [cooler if it were Danger Zone, Kenny Loggins rules!] is sufficient to “transacting business” → & declaratory judgment action arises from this [Int’l Shoe].

*** Court says there would be no personal jurisdiction b/c the declaratory judgment action before the court does not arise from the sale of Δ’s publication.

General Jurisdiction
“The court may still exercise personal jurisdiction over a Δ if it has ‘general jurisdiction,’ in which the requisite ‘minimum contacts’ b/w the Δ and the forum state are ‘fairly extensive.’”
“Only when the continuous corporate operation within a state is thought so substantial... as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from causes of action entirely distinct form those activities may a court assert general jurisdiction over a corporate Δ.”

Court finds it difficult to apply general jurisdiction in this because of the facts.
o Customers can buy online from Krames without talking to rep.
o Online storefront
o Not buying from salesmen like in Int’l Shoe
o Cites Mieczkowski → says traditional measure is the amount of revenue derived from that state’s business

***Court grants π’s motion for discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over Δ.