Diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction; US Const art III, § 2; 28 USC 1332(a); Personal jurisdiction; Beydoun v Wataniya Rests Holding, QSC; Due process concerns as to the exercise of jurisdiction; “Specific” jurisdiction; Whether defendants “purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in” the state where they were sued; Calder v Jones; Walden v Fiore; Blessing v Chandrasekhar; The Emerging Technology Association (ETA); The Open Source Standards Association (OSSA)

The court held in this diversity action that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants-ETA, OSSA, and various individuals where plaintiff-Carbone failed to establish that there were sufficient contacts between defendants and the forum state (Ohio) to satisfy the Due Process Clause. The presence of ETA and OSSA’s servers (which hosted their websites) there did not constitute “purposeful availment” of the privilege of acting in Ohio where, among other things, “ETA and OSSA contracted with third parties who independently chose to locate the servers in Ohio.” Carbone, who lives in Connecticut, sued ETA and OSSA, two Swiss cryptocurrency organizations, and individual defendants who live in California, Illinois, and Switzerland, for defamation. He alleged that the individual defendants made false statements about him resulting in his removal from the organizations. He filed suit in Ohio because ETA and OSSA maintain websites with servers located there. The district court dismissed his suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Carbone argued that it had personal jurisdiction over defendants because they “‘transacted business in Ohio, engaged in business acts in Ohio and/or caused a tortious injury through events occurring in Ohio[,]’” through the organizations’ websites. The court first explained the requirements for personal jurisdiction in a diversity action include that exercising it must be “‘in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’” It held that the district court lacked jurisdiction in this case because Carbone did not establish that exercising personal jurisdiction over defendants satisfied due process. He failed to establish specific jurisdiction over them where he did not show that they “purposefully avail[ed] themselves of the privilege of acting in Ohio[.]” They did not live there and never visited the state or contacted anyone in it. Further, the complaint did “not allege that anyone in Ohio read the defamatory statements, and [their] allegedly tortious actions never targeted anyone in Ohio.” The court also found that “mere transmission of information through a server has little, if any, effect in Ohio.” In addition, he failed to show that defendants “themselves created any connections with Ohio.” The court concluded that they “never created a substantial connection with Ohio.” Affirmed.