Austin v. Georgetown University

Background

George J. Austin filed the action against Georgetown University, Georgetown University Law Center, and an unknown photographer commissioned by Georgetown. His original complaint alleged that Georgetown used his photograph in a law-school marketing brochure without his consent or authorization. His amended complaint also alleged defamation, right of publicity, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, false light, interference with economic advantage, disability discrimination, and retaliation.

Georgetown moved to dismiss the amended complaint on four grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction, expiration of the applicable filing deadlines, failure to allege facts sufficient to state claims, and failure to provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8. The court addressed only personal jurisdiction because it found that issue dispositive.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to decide a claim against a particular defendant. The court explained that jurisdiction can be general or specific. General jurisdiction requires contacts with California so continuous and extensive that Georgetown would be considered essentially at home there. The court found that Austin’s allegations that Georgetown recruited California residents, marketed to him while he was in California, and had connections with California did not establish general jurisdiction. The court noted that recruiting, academic exchange, and fundraising activities by an out-of-state university generally do not establish general jurisdiction.

Specific jurisdiction applies when the defendant’s conduct connected to the forum state is sufficiently related to the claims. The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part test: Georgetown must have purposefully directed its activities toward California or purposefully conducted business there; the claims must arise from those activities; and exercising jurisdiction must be reasonable.

As to the photograph, the court found that Austin’s allegations did not show that Georgetown directed the alleged use of his likeness toward California. Austin alleged that a friend in California sent him a copy of the brochure and argued that Georgetown sent the brochure to California. The court concluded that the brochure was a recruiting brochure, not one apparently aimed at a California-specific audience, and that Georgetown’s possible knowledge that Austin had returned to California was insufficient.

As to the alleged defamation, discrimination, retaliation, emotional distress, and interference with economic advantage, the court found that the alleged conduct occurred at Georgetown before Austin’s leave of absence and return to California. The court held that the fact that the conduct allegedly affected Austin in California because he later resided there did not establish the required connection between Georgetown and California.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Georgetown’s motion to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for lack of personal jurisdiction. It dismissed Georgetown University and Georgetown University Law Center. The court separately dismissed the defendant identified as “Photographer Commissioned by Georgetown” for failure to prosecute because that defendant had not been served. The order terminated the motion and directed the clerk to close the file.