Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01390/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL BOSCHETTO,

Plaintiff,

v

JEFFREY D HANSING, FRANK BOUCHER

CHRYSLER DODGE-JEEP, GORDIE

BOUCHER FORD and BOUCHER

AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,

Defendants.

 /

No C-06-1390 VRW

ORDER

The complaint alleges a scenario that as far as the court

can discern has been little dealt with in the published case law

but which is bound to recur, perhaps with some frequency, in the

years ahead. Plaintiff Paul Boschetto, a California resident,

brought this diversity action against Wisconsin resident Jeffrey D

Hansing and various Wisconsin car dealerships, Doc #1 (Compl), ¶¶

1-4, alleging, inter alia, that Hansing committed breach of

contract and fraud by selling plaintiff a defective 1964 Ford

Galaxie in an Internet auction on eBay.com. Hansing and the

Wisconsin dealerships have separately moved to dismiss this case

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

under FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc ##4, 9. 

For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS both motions.

I

 On August 1, 2005, plaintiff alleges that Hansing posted

a 1964 Ford Galaxie for auction on eBay.com and that Hansing

advertised the car as an “R Code” in “awesome condition,” “recently

rebuilt” and “ready to be driven.” Compl, ¶ 6. Plaintiff contends

that he relied on this description when submitting a bid of $34,106

and that eBay later notified him that his bid had succeeded. Id,

¶¶ 7, 8. After plaintiff paid for the car, Hansing instructed him

by email that he could pick it up from Frank Boucher Chrysler Dodge

Jeep, the Wisconsin dealership where Hansing worked. Id, ¶¶ 5, 10. 

Frank Boucher Chrysler Dodge Jeep and the other defendant

dealerships apparently constitute a single automotive group. Doc

#9-2, ¶ 2. Plaintiff hired a delivery company to transport the

vehicle to California and received it on September 15, 2005. 

Compl, ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff then discovered that the vehicle was

defective and was not an “R Code” as advertised. Id, ¶ 12.

II

A plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the court

has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Doe v Unocal Corp, 248

F3d 915, 922 (9th Cir 2001). In assessing a plaintiff’s showing,

the court may consider evidence presented in affidavits and other

evidence procured during discovery. But when the court acts on the

motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, as here, the

plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

facts to withstand the motion to dismiss. Id. When not directly

controverted, plaintiff’s version of the facts must be taken as

true and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’

affidavits should be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Id. The

facts here are not in material dispute.

A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a

defendant when such jurisdiction comports with the law of the state

in which the court sits and with the requirements of due process. 

Lee v City of Los Angeles, 250 F3d 668, 692 (9th Cir 2001). 

“California [law] permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to

the full extent permitted by due process.” Bancroft & Masters, Inc

v Augusta Natl, Inc, 223 F3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir 2000); Cal Code

Civ Pro § 410.10. Due process requires a defendant to have certain

minimum contacts with the forum state so that permitting the suit

would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” International Shoe Co v Washington, 326 US 310, 316

(1945) (quoting Milliken v Meyer, 311 US 457, 463 (1940)) (internal

quotation marks omitted). A defendant’s “conduct and connection

with the forum state” must be such that the defendant “should

reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide

Volkswagen v Woodson, 444 US 286, 297 (1980).

General jurisdiction is a type of personal jurisdiction

that exists when a defendant has substantial or continuous and

systematic contacts with the forum state. Bancroft & Masters, 223

F3d at 1086. When such contacts exist, a defendant may be haled

into court in that state “in any action, even if the action is

unrelated to those contacts.” Id. The standard for establishing

general jurisdiction is “‘fairly high,’ and requires that the

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

defendant’s contacts be of the sort that approximate physical

presence.” Id (quoting Brand v Menlove Dodge, 796 F2d 1070, 1073

(9th Cir 1986)) (citation omitted).

Absent general jurisdiction, a court still may exercise

specific jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has established a threeprong test for establishing specific jurisdiction:

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully

direct his activities or consummate some

transaction with the forum or resident

thereof; or perform some act by which he

purposefully avails himself of the privilege

of conducting activities in the forum,

thereby invoking the benefits and protections

of its laws;

(2) [T]he claim must be one which arises out of

or relates to the defendant’s forum related

activities; and

(3) [T]he exercise of jurisdiction must comport

with fair play and substantial justice, i e

it must be reasonable.

Schwarzenegger v Fred Martin Motor Co, 374 F3d 797, 802 (9th Cir

2003). Although plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the

first two prongs, defendant bears the burden on the third prong. 

See id.

A

Plaintiff argues the court may have general jurisdiction

over Hansing if discovery shows that he previously sold other cars

to California residents. Doc #17-1 at 5. Although plaintiff does

not contest the Wisconsin dealerships’ assertions that they are not

incorporated in California and have never sold an automobile there

(Doc #9-2, ¶¶ 4, 11), he nonetheless suggests that the dealerships’

website might be sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over

them. Doc #16-1 at 6.

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Plaintiff’s general jurisdiction arguments fail to

persuade. Plaintiff admits that he “has no direct knowledge”

whether either the Dealership or Hansing have ‘continuing or

systematic’ contacts with the State of California.” Id. Even if

plaintiff could demonstrate past sales by Hansing to California,

occasional sales to California residents are insufficient to create

general jurisdiction. See Brand, 796 F2d at 1073. And plaintiff

has not marshaled any evidence to contest the Wisconsin

dealerships’ assertion that they have never conducted any business

in California via their website. Doc #9-2, ¶ 11. Accordingly,

plaintiff has not satisfied the fairly high burden for establishing

general jurisdiction.

B

Plaintiff’s better argument, of course, is that the court

may exercise specific jurisdiction over Hansing because he

contracted to sell a car to a California resident. Doc #17-1 at 6. 

Further, plaintiff asserts that Hansing acted as the Wisconsin

dealerships’ agent and employee in selling the car, thereby

permitting the court to exercise jurisdiction over them. Doc #16-1

at 8; Compl, ¶ 5. Hansing’s actions form the only asserted basis

for exercising specific jurisdiction over the Wisconsin

dealerships. This argument need not long detain us. Even if

Hansing acted as an agent, which the dealerships dispute, he did

not as will presently be explained, purposefully direct his actions

toward California. Without that showing, the court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over the Wisconsin dealerships.

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

Data Disc, Inc v Systems Technology Associates, 557 F2d 1280 (9th

Cir 1977), militates in favor of finding personal jurisdiction over

Hansing. Doc #17-1 at 6. But Data Disc is hardly instructive

here. In that case, the court found personal jurisdiction because

“at least some of the negotiations took place at the Data Disc

plant in Sunnyvale, California * * *.” Id at 1284. To the

contrary here, negotiations in this case took place only over the

Internet and never physically occurred in California. 

The parties do not indicate, nor has the court

discovered, any California or Ninth Circuit case law addressing the

propriety of exercising specific jurisdiction over a nonresident

defendant based on a single online auction sale to a resident of

the forum state. But generally, “the likelihood that personal

jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised [over an entity with

a website] is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of

commercial activity that [the] entity conducts over the Internet.” 

Cybersell, Inc v Cybersell, Inc, 130 F3d 414, 419 (9th Cir 1997)

(quoting Zippo Mfg Co v Zippo Dot Com, Inc, 952 F Supp 1119, 1124

(WD Pa 1997)). This activity ranges from “a broad spectrum of

Internet use on the one hand, and contacts with the forum on the

other.” Id at 417. Here, of course, the issue is not whether the

court has personal jurisdiction over the intermediary eBay but

whether it has personal jurisdiction over an individual who

conducted business over eBay. Nonetheless, Cybersell provides a

useful framework for determining whether Hansing’s use of eBay

constitutes sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify

exercising personal jurisdiction.

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

In defining whether the defendant had sufficient minimum

“contacts with the forum,” Cybersell relies on CompuServe, Inc v

Patterson, 89 F3d 1257 (6th Cir 1996). There, the Sixth Circuit

found jurisdiction over defendant Patterson proper because he

“electronically transmitted thirty-two master software files to

CompuServe, which CompuServe stored and displayed to its

subscribers. * * * In effect, Patterson used CompuServe as a

distribution center to market his software.” Cybersell, 130 F3d at

417 (summarizing CompuServe, 89 F3d at 1264). Additionally, the

relationship “was intended to be ongoing in nature; it was not a

‘one-shot affair.’” Compuserve, 89 F3d at 1265.

In the present case, Hansing’s contacts with the forum

state are not nearly as repetitive or comprehensive as were

Patterson’s contacts in Compuserve. Although Hansing used eBay to

market the automobile, eBay acted not as a “distribution center”

but rather as a virtual forum for the exchange of goods. And the

relationship between plaintiff and Hansing was exactly a “one-shot

affair.” While eBay is headquartered in California, this contact

is irrelevant because this dispute only involves two eBay users and

not eBay itself.

Exercising personal jurisdiction would be improper here

because Hansing’s actions were not purposefully directed at the

forum state. Auction sales on eBay are “random” and “attenuated,”

and “the choice of [the] highest bidder is * * * beyond the control

of the seller;” hence, an overwhelming majority of courts have held

that an eBay seller does not purposefully avail himself of the 

privilege of doing business in a forum state absent some additional 

conduct directed at the forum state. See The Winfield Collection,

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Ltd v McCauley, 105 F Supp 2d 746, 749 (ED Mich 2000); Metcalf v

Lawson, 802 A 2d 1221 (NH 2002) (finding no personal jurisdiction

over an eBay seller with no control over the ultimate winner and no

ability to exclude buyers from specific jurisdictions); Karstetter

v Voss, 184 SW 3d 396 (Tex Ct App 2006) (finding no personal

jurisdiction over an eBay seller who rejected a buyer’s offer to

preempt the auction and instead let the bidding process conclude),

Action Tapes, Inc v Ebert, 2006 US Dist LEXIS 4958 (ND Tex 2006)

(finding no personal jurisdiction over an eBay seller where the

traditional auction process was not altered or circumvented in any

manner); United Cutlery Corp v NFZ, Inc, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 21664

(D Md 2003) (finding no personal jurisdiction over an eBay seller

whose manifested intent was to sell to the highest bidder).

Although research did indicate two opinions that diverge

from the prevailing view, their analyses do not persuade the court. 

In Malcolm v Esposito, the dispute arose from a single eBay sale to

a Virginia resident. 63 Va Cir 440, 446 (Va Cir Ct 2003). 

Nonetheless, the court found jurisdiction proper because defendants

were commercial sellers with 213 sales on eBay and who represented

that they had local, national and international eBay customers. 

Id. 

This case is distinguishable because plaintiff does not

allege that Hansing or the Wisconsin dealerships conducted business

over eBay with any frequency. To the contrary, plaintiff marshaled 

no evidence to contest the dealerships’ assertion that they have

never conducted business in California via the Internet. Doc #9-2,

¶ 11. 

//

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

In Tindall v One 1973 Ford Mustang, the dispute again

arose from a single eBay sale. 2006 WL 1329168, *1 (ED Mich 2006). 

The court found jurisdiction proper because in “selling the car to

a Michigan resident, Defendants have transacted business in the

state, giving this Court personal jurisdiction over them * * *.” 

Id at *4. 

While more factually analogous to this case, Tindall is

not persuasive because the court provided no reasoning to support

its aforementioned conclusion. While other courts at least

recognize that the Internet and particularly an eBay transaction

may alter the jurisdictional analysis, the Tindall court seemingly

analogized the situation to a “phone call or written correspondence

to the forum.” Id (quoting General Motors Corp v Ignacio Lopez de

Arriortua, 948 F Supp 656, 663 (ED Mich 1996)). The analogy is

flawed because phone calls and written correspondence by nature

must be specifically targeted to a resident of the forum, while an

advertisement on eBay lacks such focus.

Looking to whether Hansing engaged in some additional

conduct directed at the forum, the court finds that plaintiff has

alleged none. Only after the auction and alleged fraud had been

committed did Hansing learn that the car was California-bound and

did he email plaintiff regarding delivery. Accordingly, the

“nature and quality” of Hansing’s conduct over the Internet are

insufficient to permit exercising personal jurisdiction in

California. Significantly, plaintiff -- not Hansing -- made the

arrangements for pick-up of the vehicle in Wisconsin and dispatched

the shipper to that state. Unlike the usual eBay transaction in

which the seller arranges for shipment and sets in motion the 

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

events that land the product in the buyer’s locale, this case is

different.

This fact alone, although important enough, does not

warrant finding that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over

Hansing. Perhaps a greater significance lies in what too easy a

test of personal jurisdiction could do to Internet commerce of the

kind involved here. Assume an eBay seller would be subject to

personal jurisdiction simply by consigning an item to eBay that is

bought by some denizen of a faraway forum. The friction on ecommerce of such a rule would slow the flow of transactions --

perhaps significantly. No doubt, Boschetto suffers considerable

inconvenience in going to Wisconsin to assert his claim. But he

bought the car knowing it was in Wisconsin and chose to do so

without an inspection by himself or a third party who could have

been engaged for that purpose. Under the facts here, due process

suffers no offense by holding that this court lacks personal

jurisdiction over defendants.

C

Plaintiff alternatively requests that “limited discovery

be allowed to determine whether Hansing had sufficient contacts to

form the basis for jurisdiction” (Doc #17-1 at 7-8) and “to

determine whether Hansing was acting as either the actual or

ostensible agent for [the] dealership” (Doc #16-1 at 9). The court

has broad discretion to permit or deny discovery to determine

whether personal jurisdiction exists. See Data Disc, 557 F2d at

1285 n1. Here, plaintiff merely speculates without any support

that discovery might allow him to demonstrate that jurisdiction in 

//

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

California is proper. The court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s

request for discovery.

III

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hansing’s motion to dismiss

(Doc #4) and the Wisconsin dealerships’ motion to dismiss (Doc #9). 

The clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file and TERMINATE all pending

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01390-VRW Document 26 Filed 07/13/06 Page 11 of 11