[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | The Book | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

Act 110: New Rulings

On January 8, 2003, my attorney submitted this letter to the Court of Appeals to make them aware of a few recent decisions that are relevant to my case.


January 8, 2003

United States Court of Appeals
Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
100 E. Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3988

Re: Taubman v. Mishkoff, Nos. 01-2648, 01-2725

Dear Clerk:

Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I am writing to call the Court's attention to rulings from other appellate courts in the past month pertaining to the personal jurisdiction issue. Please circulate copies of the letter to Circuit Judges Boggs and Clay and Senior Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich, who heard oral argument in this case on October 16, 2002.

In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 2002 WL 31780988 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2002), the Fourth Circuit refused to allow a Virginia prison warden to sue in Virginia over articles that Connecticut newspapers posted on the Internet about the incarceration of Connecticut prisoners in a Virginia prison; the Court relied in part on the absence of evidence that the newspapers had targeted readers in Virginia. In Revell v. Lidov, 2002 WL 31890992 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2002), the Fifth Circuit refused to allow an FBI official residing in Texas to bring suit there against a professor who posted an article on the web site of the Columbia Journalism Review that discussed the activities of the plaintiff; that court relied in part on the fact that Texas was not the focal point of the articles. Revell followed this Court's decision in Reynolds v. Int'l Amateur Athletic Foundn, 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994).

In Pavlovich v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 (Cal. 2002), the court refused to allow a Texan to be sued in California for posting on his web site certain software that allegedly violated the copyright laws, absent evidence that he had targeted California by his actions.

All of these decisions included a limited construction of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), a case on which appellee relies. And, because this case involves a web site about a Texas shopping mall, even if it is owned by a company based in Michigan, the decisions support our argument that a court in Michigan lacks jurisdiction over Mishkoff's person.

Sincerely yours,
Paul Alan Levy

cc: Douglas Sprinkle, Esquire
Ann Beeson, Esquire

Next: Taubman Responds to Our "New Rulings" Letter

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | The Book | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

©2003 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.