On March 25, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cossaboon v. MaineMedicalCenter, 2010 WL 1078342 (C.A.1 (N.H.)). In June, 2008, Amanda Cossaboon filed a medical malpractice action against the MaineMedicalCenter (“MMC”) after an employee burnt her newborn daughter’s foot with a hot, wet diaper.Cossaboon filed suit in New Hampshire state court, but MMC removed the action to federal court and subsequently moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On February 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Quiznos’ motion for summary judgment on Subway’s suit for false and deceptive advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, along with state law claims for commercial disparagement and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. QIP Holders, LLC., 2010 WL 669870 (D. Conn.). The case arises out of Quiznos’ advertising campaign to introduce their “double meat” line of sandwiches. The advertising campaign involved an internet-based contest and two national television commercials that compared certain “double meat” Quiznos sandwiches to certain Subway sandwiches.Quiznos claimed that its new line of sandwiches had “two times the meat” of comparable Subway sandwiches.
On February 3, 2010, the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona dismissed a defamation complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction where the defendant published on a website an allegedly defamatory
article about the plaintiffs, who reside in Arizona.Xcentric
Ventures LLC v. Bird, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2010 WL 447759 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3,
2010).Even though the defendants
intentionally published the article and it could perhaps be proven that
defendants were aware that the plaintiffs resided in Arizona, the Arizona court
was unable to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant
because the allegedly defamatory act was not “expressly aimed” at the state of