Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAN E. KRUSKA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

PERVERTED JUSTICE FOUNDATION

INCORPORATED, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0054-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Christopher Brocious’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 12(b)(2), (3) and (5) (Doc. 68). The Motion to Dismiss is

brought based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service

of process. After careful consideration, the Court finds the following. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The party seeking to invoke a federal district court’s jurisdiction bears the burden

of establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant. See, e.g., Ziegler v. Indian River

County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Portage La Prairie

Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990)). When the court relies on affidavits and

discovery materials without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima

facie showing of jurisdiction to avoid the motion to dismiss. Ochoa v. J.B. Martin and

Sons Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). In making this showing, “the

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 138 Filed 11/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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

1

Absent traditional bases for personal jurisdiction (physical presence, domicile, or

consent), due process is satisfied when a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum

“such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The United

- 2 -

plaintiff need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the

defendant.” Doe I v. Unocal, Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Ballard

v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995)). The version of facts presented by

Plaintiff must be taken as true and any conflicts in the evidence presented by the parties

must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Id. 

DISCUSSION 

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a principal place of business

in Youngstown, Ohio. (Doc. 1 ¶4.) Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant does

“business in the state of Arizona.” (Id.) The extent of this business consists of owning

three websites, including absolutezerounited.blogspot.com, absolutezerounited.org, and

absolutezerounited.com. (Id.) These three websites, according to Plaintiff, 

support volunteers who post information derived through their ‘joint effort’

with corporatesexoffenders.com and Perverted Justice Inc. Expanding upon

such information in a libelous, defamatory, inciting manner on their

‘targets’ along with photographs, copyrighted materials, [and] personal

identifying information.

(Id.) Plaintiff neither contends that Defendant participated in any profit gaining activity

in Arizona, nor placed a product in the stream of commerce.

In response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging

lack of personal jurisdiction, among other things. As an Ohio resident, Defendant

contends that he has done nothing to subject himself to jurisdiction in Arizona. (Doc. 68,

4:5-8.) Rather, Plaintiff’s allegations are directed towards the three websites she lists in

her Complaint as “doing business in Arizona.” (Doc. 68, 4:8-9.) According to

Defendant, because he does not have minimum contacts with the state, any assertion of

personal jurisdiction over him would offend the traditional notion of fair play and

substantial justice.1

 Plaintiff’s Response fails to address Defendant’s jurisdictional

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 138 Filed 11/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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

States Supreme Court has identified the “relationship among the defendant, the forum, and

the litigation” as the “essential foundation of in personam jurisdiction.” Helicopteros

Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). 

- 3 -

arguments, but focuses instead on Defendant’s claims of insufficient service. As a result,

Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of establishing the court’s personal jurisdiction

over Defendant. Ziegler, 64 F.3d at 473. 

Looking to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the maintenance of a relatively

passive website that is accessible to Arizona residents, and everyone else, on the Internet

is insufficient for personal jurisdiction. In considering when personal jurisdiction may be

exercised in the context of cyberspace, the courts have looked to “nature and quality of

commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.” Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo

Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997). The first opportunity for the

Ninth Circuit to address personal jurisdiction as it applies to the Internet came in

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997). In that case, the court

adopted the “sliding scale” approach found in Zippo that examines a particular web site’s

interactivity and commercial nature.

At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does

business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with

residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated

transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is

proper. At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply

posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in

foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make

information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the

exercise personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by

interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host

computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by

examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange

of information that occurs on the Web site.

952 F. Supp. at 1124 (citations omitted). Under this framework, Defendant’s website is

largely passive because he has simply operated webpages that are accessible to interested

users across the United States. Defendant has done nothing to encourage people in

Arizona to access the site, and there is no evidence that any business was transacted over

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 138 Filed 11/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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 -

the website. The interactivity of the website is limited to various contributors posting

comments regarding pedophiles and their activities. 

Applying the “minimum contacts” analysis, the Court finds it would not comport

with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” for Arizona to exercise

personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has no contacts with Arizona other than

running a website on the Internet. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316

(1945). Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Defendant posted any of the allegedly

defamatory and copyrighted material himself, but merely that he is the owner of the

websites. Even assuming Defendant participated in Internet correspondence, Plaintiff has

not demonstrated that such correspondence is enough for personal jurisdiction. Accepting

all allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint as true and resolving any factual conflicts in favor

of Plaintiff, she has not shown that asserting personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a

resident of Ohio, without doing any business in Arizona, would not offend due process.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the

Complaint as to Defendant Brocious only. However, Plaintiff will be given leave to refile an Amended Complaint as to Defendant Brocious. Plaintiff must provide facts

establishing that Defendant has minimum contacts with the state of Arizona such that the

exercise of personal jurisdiction over him would not offend the traditional notions of fair

play and substantial justice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant Christopher Brocious’

Cross-Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 12(b)(2), (3) and (5) (Doc. 68)

without prejudice (Doc. 68).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendant Brocious are

dismissed without prejudice with leave to re-file.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until December 19, 2008

to re-file her claims against Defendant Brocious.

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 138 Filed 11/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -

DATED this 25th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 138 Filed 11/28/08 Page 5 of 5