Harlan & Cimoszewicz v. Wprost

The Court noted that there is scarce case-law pertaining to this issue (no Supreme Court decision was quoted). The SC Court relied on a decision in Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1997 in which the relevant factor for establishing jurisdiction is “the nature and quality of commercial activity conducted by an entity over the Internet in the forum state”. The Plaintiffs offered no evidence that would allow to assess the nature and quality of Wprost’s Internet activity in SC, thus the Court dismissed the theory that Internet could make the jurisdiction link.

 

The last jurisdiction link within the minimum contact theory that the SC analyzed was whether South Carolina had been “the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered.” Under Calder v. Jones, had these criteria been met, the SC Court would have jurisdiction even though the previous tests came out negative. The understanding of the focal point in further jurisprudence requires that Defendants expressly aim their tortious conduct at South Carolina. The Court found no evidence of such directed activity, namely because of nominal circulation of Wprost in SC.

 

Having lost in South Carolina, the same Plaintiffs sued in Chicago in a state court (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division).

 

The materials from the state courts are often not as readily available via Google, Westlaw, or PACER as federal ones. This was the case of the litigation at hand in Chicago, so I can present the documents below only thanks to wonderful support from Steve Young of The Catholic University of America who is a professional in retrieving such information.

 

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs ask for trial by jury, and assert that Wprost published articles which had amounted to defamation, and seek actual and punitive damages. They claim that accusations in Wprost about the Plaintiffs are false, and were made maliciously with the intent to injure the Plaintiffs.

 

According to the recent press release by one of the Defendants – Wprost, the magazine is questioning the fact of effective petition delivery, and claims not having received any information about the proceedings in question or verdict of the American court.