Brannies v. Internet ROI, Inc.

Citations: 67 F. Supp. 3d 1365; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31294; 2015 WL 1137803Docket: Case No. CV414-155

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia; March 13, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Internet ROI, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss has been granted, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, while Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint has been denied. The case is ordered closed by the Clerk of Court. The background reveals that Defendant operates an online news website that featured a photograph of Plaintiff alongside a misleading headline implying his involvement in a sexual assault depicted in a video. Plaintiff alleges libel per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which he initially brought in state court before it was removed to federal court.

Defendant's motion argues lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming insufficient business transactions or contacts with Georgia. In contrast, Plaintiff contends that the website's accessibility to Georgia residents establishes jurisdiction. The analysis outlines that the plaintiff bears the burden to establish a prima facie case for jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, relying on uncontroverted allegations in the complaint. The court's ability to assert personal jurisdiction hinges on compliance with Georgia’s long-arm statute and constitutional due process, which requires minimum contacts and a fair evaluation of various factors, including the defendant's burden and the interests of the states involved.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has established that general jurisdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute necessitates 'continuous and systematic business contact' with Georgia. In Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Colemon, additional factors beyond mere minimum contacts are emphasized for establishing general jurisdiction, including regularly doing business, deriving substantial revenue, having agents or offices, and maintaining subsidiaries in the state. In this instance, the complaint lacks allegations that would subject the Defendant to general jurisdiction in Georgia. Consequently, the court must assess if specific personal jurisdiction can be invoked under the Georgia long-arm statute, which allows for such jurisdiction if the cause of action arises from specified acts or omissions. The statute requires a connection between the cause of action and the act or transaction that leads to the defendant being brought into a Georgia court. The Plaintiff contends that subsections (1) and (3) of O.C.G.A. 9-10-91 provide grounds for personal jurisdiction. Subsection (1) pertains to nonresidents transacting business in Georgia, while subsection (3) addresses tortious injuries caused by acts outside Georgia, contingent upon the defendant engaging in persistent conduct or generating substantial revenue in Georgia. To establish that a nonresident has 'transacted any business' in Georgia, three criteria must be satisfied: purposeful action in Georgia, a connection between the cause of action and the action taken, and a determination that exercising jurisdiction aligns with traditional fairness and substantial justice. In this case, the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his claim is connected to any act or transaction in Georgia, as the alleged misconduct stems from the Defendant's website publication rather than advertisements on the site, leading to the conclusion that personal jurisdiction under subsection (1) cannot be exercised.

Prior to the internet, Georgia courts established that advertising alone does not create personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Cases such as Flint v. Gust and Phears v. Doyne confirm that an out-of-state defendant's mere advertising in trade magazines or acceptance of orders from Georgia does not amount to purposeful business activity in the state. The inclusion of third-party ads on a news website is insufficient for personal jurisdiction. Under O.C.G.A. 9-10-91(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant regularly conducts business in Georgia or earns substantial revenue from goods or services in the state. In this instance, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant engaged in regular business or derived significant revenue from Georgia. While the plaintiff cited Aero Toy Store to argue that revenue from Georgia residents via website ads suffices for jurisdiction, the court noted that the circumstances in Aero Toy Store involved an interactive website with direct sales and shipping to Georgia, which differ significantly from the defendant's passive news website that merely hosts third-party ads. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, and directed the closure of the case, deeming any proposed amendments futile as they would not establish personal jurisdiction.