E-Jurisdiction. American Business Financial Services, Inc (ABFI), a Pennsylvania firm, sells and services loans to businesses and consumers. First Union National Bank, with its principal place of business in North Carolina, provides banking services

Question

Alan Boyer, an employee of First Union, lives in North Carolina and has never been to Pennsylvania. In the course of his employment, Boyer learned that the bank was going to extend a $150 million line of credit to ABFI. Boyer then attempted to manipulate the stock price of ABFI for personal gain by sending disparaging e-mails to ABFI's independent auditors in Pennsylvania. Boyer also posted negative statements about ABFI and its management on a Yahoo bulletin board. ABFI filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against Boyer, First Union, and others, alleging wrongful interference with a contractual relationship, among other things. Boyer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Could the court exercise jurisdiction over Boyer? Explain.

Answer 1

E-Jurisdiction
The court denied Boyer's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. "[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised [in the context of Internet activities] is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet." Boyer "posted Internet messages on the Yahoo bulletin board, which included negative information regarding ABFI." He "also sent an e-mail to ABFI's independent auditors, accusing ABFI of ‘fraudulent accounting practices' and ‘borderline criminal conduct' . . . with the understanding that the independent auditors were situated in Pennsylvania." Also, the court held that the e-mail fell under the state's long-arm statute, which, like other states' long-arm statutes, permits the exercise of jurisdiction "where an act or omission outside the Commonwealth [Pennsylvania] causes harm or tortious injury inside the Commonwealth." Finally, the court reasoned that "its exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant Boyer would not necessarily violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. It is true that as a non-resident individual, Boyer will be burdened in being forced to defend himself in Pennsylvania. However, his conduct appears to be directed towards Pennsylvania where Plaintiff is located and where Plaintiff's auditors are located. Plaintiff's interest in adjudicating its dispute and vindicating its reputation in Pennsylvania appears to be self-evident. . . . In addition, it does seem reasonable and fair to require Boyer to conduct his defense in Pennsylvania since that is where he sent the negative e-mail."