E-Commerce Law: New Jersey Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over California Resident Who Directed Defamatory Statements to Forum

New Jersey Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over California Resident Who Directed Defamatory Statements to Forum

In Goldhaber v. Kohlenberg, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has affirmed a trial court ruling that a New Jersey court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over a California resident who posted defamatory statements to an Internet newsgroup, where the statements were directed at the forum state.

The Court first acknowledged that traditional jurisdiction principles apply even in the context of cases based upon Internet communications; thus, "[t]he question is whether ‘the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonable anticipate being haled into court there.’" Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 164 N.J. 38, 67 (2000) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 501 (1980)). Obviously, posting a statement on the Internet that could be read in the forum state, just as it could be read virtually anywhere else in the world, is not sufficient to subject the poster to in personam jurisdiction. However, where the effects of a defamatory statement would be felt in the forum state (where the plaintiff resides or does business) and the statement is directed or targeted to that forum, the poster's contacts with the forum are sufficient to impose personal jurisdiction. See id. at 70 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 70 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984)) (adopting the "effects" test for personal jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court).

In Goldhaber, the Court found that

[t]he author not only knew that plaintiffs resided in New Jersey, he knew the municipality in which they resided and made specific disparaging references to that municipality in many of his postings. . . . He also made insulting comments about that municipality’s police department. In addition, he referred to plaintiffs’ neighbors in the apartment complex in which they resided and at one point even posted their address.

Accordingly, the Court held that defendant should reasonably have anticipated being haled into court in New Jersey.