Friday, June 20, 2008

An Eye For Personal Jurisdiction?

In Philips v. Prairie Eye Center, the First Circuit recently held that an eye treatment center did not meet the “minimum contacts” standard by negotiating an employment contract via e-mail with an eye doctor in the forum state.  When addressing “relatedness” in relation to a contract claim, the court looks at whether the defendant's activity in the forum state was instrumental either in the formation of the contract or its breach. Here, the court noted that negotiations by e-mail are inherently different from actually negotiating a contract in the forum state. Thus, the claim underlying the litigation did not directly arise out of, or relate to, the defendant's forum-state activities.--Counseller

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/civpro/2008/06/an-eye-for-pers.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e55351ad718833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An Eye For Personal Jurisdiction?:

» Buy xanax. from Xanax.
Buy xanax. [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 14, 2009 9:58:42 AM

Comments

So, I am the Dr. Phillips in the above lawsuit. I am also an attorney. We are preparing an appeal regarding this case to the Supreme Court. I was hoping that someone would be so kind as to share their opinions regarding issues that can be brought up in the brief that will decrease the liklihood that the SC will deny cert. We will certainly include an argument that e-mail should be treated no different than any other from of communication (in person or otherwise). We will also include arguments that I cannot be considered to have reached out in Illinois and all other 50 states by posting my resume on a passive website and that, in fact, Prairie reached out by initating contact with me through an e-mail directed specifically to me. What other strong points do you see?

Posted by: Chris Phillips | Aug 17, 2008 11:13:13 PM

Post a comment