UNITED STATES 3RD DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL
APPEAL ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
I, Jane Johnson, (hereby known as the Defendant) wish to appeal the ruling made by Judge Haas on the matter of Smith v. Johnson, Case Number 24568 through my lawyers, Aberdeen, Bernanke, and Claustrophobic, Inc. The ruling was made against the Defendant in her capacity as the owner of the website www.pissedproducer.com where the post about the Plaintiff, Douglas Smith, was posted. The ruling was made by Judge Haas of the United States District Court: Eastern District of California.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Defendant wishes to plead with the court to reconsider the ruling aforementioned. Contrary to the precedent created by the ruling on McDonough v. Fallon McElligott, the judge ruled that His court had personal jurisdiction over the case. This ruling is erroneous because
i). the Court relied on the Internet to supply sufficient contact with the forum state. The ruling on McDonough v. Fallon McElligott states that a website such as www.pissedproducer.com that is used by residents of California could not establish jurisdiction,
ii). The lower court and Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the Defendant’s sufficient, substantial, continuous, and systematic contact with the forum state. In his ruling, the judge used the precedent set by the ruling in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (U.S. 1985), where the defendant is said to have established a substantial and continuing relationship with a resident of Florida. It is our opinion that the relationship between the Defendant and Plaintiff was not continuous and insubstantial to warrant a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.
iii). The Plaintiff also failed to show that the Defendant’s contact and actions from outside the state with the forum state had any impact on the State of California. Based on the precedent set by McGee v. International Life Ins.Co., 355 U.S. 220 (US. 1957), the Supreme Court only allows personal jurisdiction to the State of California when the ‘suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection with California.’ The ruling of the lower court failed to take this into account because the ‘relationship’ that ensued between the Defendant and the Plaintiff had no substantial connection with California.
iv). The premise of the ruling also failed to show that the Defendant had any reason to anticipate being called into court in the forum because of her ‘contact’ with the forum state.
In addition, the Plaintiff continuously failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On Count I (defamation per se), he failed to demonstrate the falsehood of the material published on the Defendant’s website. In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of injury, emotional or otherwise. He also did not provide reasonable evidence as to the negligence of the Defendant in her publishing of the material that she was given by a third party or to the claim that she was ‘acting with malice’ when she posted the aforementioned material on her website.
On Count II (invasion of privacy), the Plaintiff has consistently failed to demonstrate that the Defendant violated his right to privacy. The video presented along other documentary evidence was taken in a public place. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant’s conduct went beyond the bounds of decency.
The judge also incorrectly argued that the cause of action for invasion of privacy was to be upheld because the information released by the Defendant was ‘in violation of social norms.’ The publication of the address and name cannot be deemed as a violation of social norms because those attributes are already in public domain and they are publicly accessible.
The Defendant pleads with the court to review this matter with the utmost expedience, as her stay in California is expensive and is also causing her a lot of emotional distress. She also wishes to thank the Appellate Court for reviewing her case.