Burgess v. Vitola, 2008 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2008)(Diaz)

The Court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state doctors and dentists who had allegedly sent internet advertising to plaintiff, a North Carolina resident.  The Court rejected plaintiff's argument that there was jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. §1-75.4(4)(a), which allows for the assertion of jurisdiction when “solicitation or services activities were carried on within this State or by or on behalf of the defendant.”

The Court stated that “it makes absolutely no sense that Moving Defendants, all of whom operate law or dental practices in states far removed from North Carolina, would have any interest in soliciting [plaintiff], or any other North Carolina resident.” The defendants, via affidavits, in fact denied such interest.

The Court relied on the North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in Havey v. Valentine, 172 N.C. App. 812, 616 S.E.2d 642 (2005), in which the appellate court held that “a person who simply places information on the Internet does not subject himself to jurisdiction in each State into which the electronic signal is transmitted and received.”

Full Opinion

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.ncbusinesslitigationreport.com/admin/trackback/62719
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?