East Coast Test Prep LLC v. Allnurses.com, Inc.

Background

East Coast Test Prep LLC, doing business as Achieve Test Prep, and Mark Olynyk sued Uhura Russ over statements posted on Allnurses.com under the username LadyFree28. The remaining claims against Russ were defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Russ was a Pennsylvania resident and stated that she had no contacts with Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that Russ’s posts were part of a scheme involving Allnurses and its users to harm ATP and direct customers to competitors.

Russ filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which allows dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority over a defendant. The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion asking the court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that Minnesota could exercise jurisdiction over Russ only if doing so complied with due process. That required sufficient “minimum contacts” with Minnesota and conduct showing that Russ purposefully directed activities toward the state or its residents.

The court found that Russ’s posts to a Minnesota-based website were the only Minnesota contacts plausibly alleged by the plaintiffs. It concluded that the posts were noncommercial, the claims arose from a single post, neither Russ nor the plaintiffs were Minnesota residents, and Minnesota was inconvenient for both sides. The court therefore held that Russ had not purposefully availed herself of Minnesota and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.

Waiver

The plaintiffs argued that Russ had waived her jurisdictional defense by failing to raise it earlier. The court rejected that argument. It liberally construed Russ’s earlier filings made without a lawyer, including statements that she had no connection to the dispute, lived in Pennsylvania, and was being forced to litigate in Minnesota. The court held that those filings sufficiently raised challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue, so Russ had not waived her jurisdictional defense.

Transfer

The plaintiffs asked the court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court noted uncertainty about whether the transfer statute applied to a lack of personal jurisdiction rather than a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It nevertheless considered transfer and concluded that the interests of justice favored dismissal. The court stated that the plaintiffs had offered no argument explaining why transfer would serve the interests of justice and that the claims against the other defendants had already been dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted Uhura Russ’s motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion to transfer, and dismissed the action. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.