Jurisdiction – Personal

Listen to this article

Where a defendant with headquarters in Bellevue, Washington has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a plaintiff’s complaint claiming defamation and violation of G.L.c. 93A and seeking a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff did not misappropriate purported confidential information allegedly provided by the defendant in connection with the development of the plaintiff’s new software product, the dismissal motion must be denied in light of the defendant’s contacts with Massachusetts.

“Although it may be true that soliciting business, exchanging emails and telephone calls, negotiating [a non-disclosure agreement], agreeing that the NDA would be governed by Massachusetts law and sending an allegedly defamatory email into Massachusetts, each alone may be insufficient contacts to satisfy the minimum contacts standard, as a whole, such contacts with Massachusetts are neither random or fortuitous. Taken together, they indicate that [defendant] Lucid8 purposefully availed itself of the benefits of doing business in Massachusetts.”

Acronis, Inc., Ltd., et al. v. Lucid8, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-330-11) (21 pages) (Casper, J.) (USDC) (Civil Action No. 11-10772-DJC) (Oct. 26, 2011).

Click here for the full-text opinion.