jurisdiction

Subscribe to jurisdiction via RSS

On August 5, 2022, a federal trial court in Ohio ruled that the location of a social media influencer meant that jurisdiction was proper for a tortious interference with contract lawsuit brought against the influencer and alleged interferers, even though one of the defendants had only been to Ohio once, five years ago.  EHPLabs Research, LLC, v. Smith, No. 5:22CV0653 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 5, 2022) (2022 WL 3139604).  Although the matter is at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it provides some good takeaways for anyone entering into arrangements with social media influencers.

On August 27, 2021, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an international trademark dispute where U.S. jurisdiction hinged on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).  Reversing the trial court, the Ninth Circuit ruled that personal jurisdiction existed over an Australian skin care product company, based in part on that company’s actions on social media.  (Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., No. 20-16214,  — F.4th —- (Aug. 27, 2021) (2021 WL 3823624).)