Jurisdiction – Online education

Listen to this article

Where a complaint has been filed against a defendant nonprofit corporation that offers and provides courses online, the corporation purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Massachusetts, so its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should be denied.

“Defendant KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary (‘KPCA’), and its officers, Defendants Jong Taek Chung, sued individually and as Designated School Official, and Yohan Kang, sued individually and as an Officer and Dean of Academic Affairs (collectively, the ‘KPCA Defendants’), seek to dismiss Plaintiff High Expectations LLC’s (‘High Expectations’) Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 49] for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. … For the reasons set forth below, Chung and Kang’s Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 61, 64] are granted for lack of personal jurisdiction, and KPCA’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 53] is denied as to the lack of personal jurisdiction argument and otherwise remains under advisement. …

“… KPCA’s online presence is more than the occasional advertisement or an informational website about its school in Washington. Its principal online activity — which gives rise to the injuries alleged in the complaint — is offering and providing courses online. KPCA admits that at least 129 of its current students reside in Massachusetts, … supporting the inference that those students are taking KPCA’s courses online while in Massachusetts.

“As noted above, High Expectations has also alleged that the sticker price for KPCA’s annual tuition is $4,800 per year. … Although KPCA disputes that this figure reflects the true amount of revenue received after discounts or scholarships, KPCA does not dispute that this is the sticker price for tuition and does not suggest that it receives no revenue from students in Massachusetts. …

“The court finds that KPCA’s conduct amounts to transacting business and contracting to supply services in Massachusetts sufficient to satisfy sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the long-arm statute. …

“Having found that the Massachusetts long-arm statute is satisfied as to KPCA, the court now considers whether personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause, which requires that KPCA have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ …

“Here, the claims arise out of KPCA’s alleged efforts to lure students to its substandard online education platform that allegedly violates regulatory requirements, thus giving rise to High Expectations’ claims of unfair competition and tortious interference with its business relations. … The court finds a sufficient nexus between High Expectations’ claims and KPCA’s conduct hosting online classes for Massachusetts residents. …

“… KPCA admits that over 100 of its students are in Massachusetts, … and does not dispute that potentially hundreds more of its students are in Massachusetts. … Its conduct in enrolling those students is central to High Expectations’ claims of unfair competition and tortious interference. And although KPCA disputes the actual calculation of revenue it receives, … even heavily discounted tuition across hundreds of students would amount to a substantial revenue source indicating a regular course of business with Massachusetts residents. Furthermore, High Expectations alleges that KPCA principally operated in English and Korean until it began ‘intentionally targeting Brazilian students’ with the creation of a Portuguese-language program in 2024, … and the timing of this change in conjunction with the high volume of transfers of Massachusetts-based students to KPCA throughout 2024, … supports an inference that KPCA targeted Massachusetts residents. …

“Therefore, the court finds that KPCA purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Massachusetts so as to reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. …

“Finally, the court must assess the reasonableness of exercising personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant based on five factors: (1) the defendant’s burden of appearing, (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, (4) the judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most effective resolution of the controversy, and (5) the common interests of all sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies. …

“KPCA does not address the reasonableness factors in either its moving brief or reply. In any event, the court finds the exercise of personal jurisdiction here reasonable: nothing in the record indicates a ‘special or unusual burden’ for KPCA as a corporate entity to appear in this forum, …; Massachusetts ‘has a manifest interest in providing a convenient forum to residents asserting good faith and objectively reasonable claims for relief,’ …; High Expectations’ choice of forum is entitled to deference, …; and nothing suggests that personal jurisdiction here would offend the interests of the judicial system or the common interests of all sovereigns.

“Accordingly, the court finds that exercising personal jurisdiction over KPCA conforms with the due process requirements of the Constitution, and KPCA’s motion to dismiss on that basis is denied. …

“For the foregoing reasons, Chung’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 61] and Kang’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 64] are granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. KPCA’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 53] is denied as to personal jurisdiction and otherwise remains under advisement.”

High Expectations LLC v. KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-474-25) (16 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-11225-IT) (Sept. 3, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.