IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GORDON ROY PARKER, a/k/a/ ) 

RAY GORDON, d/b/a SNODGRASS ) 

PUBLISHING GROUP, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) C.A. No. 05-cv-2752 

 ) 

LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al., ) The Hon. Harvey Bartle, III 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT LEARN THE SKILLS CORP. 

IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GORDON ROY PARKER 

TO VACATE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS LEARN THE SKILLS 

CORP. AND FORMHANDLE, FOR COSTS AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

 Defendant Learn The Skills Corp. (“LTSC”) hereby responds to plaintiff’s Motion to 

Vacate Judgment in Favor of Defendants Learn The Skills Corp. and Formhandle, for Costs and 

to Supplement the Record (the “Motion”), and states as follows: 

 1. The basis of the Motion is that “newly discovered evidence” allegedly shows that 

jurisdiction over LTSC is proper in Pennsylvania because LTSC advertises a product for sale on 

an Internet web site which domain name LTSC registered in May, 2005. 

 2. Plaintiff points out that the domain name “artofthepickup.com” was registered in 

May, 2005. However, plaintiff fails to provide any evidence as to when the web site actually 

went “live,” i.e., when it first became visible to Internet browsers.1

 

1

 In fact, the web site went live on July 1, 2006, months after this action was dismissed. 

However, as the owners of LTSC have legitimate concerns of harassment from plaintiff if their 

identities are revealed, they have elected not to submit an affidavit in support of this fact, but 

instead leave it to plaintiff to his burden to prove affirmatively when the site went live. If 

plaintiff contends than the web site went live earlier, he has the burden of proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that he acted with due diligence in searching for such evidence. Harduvel 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 54 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 3
2

 3. Irrespective of when the site went “live,” “the mere operation of a commercially 

interactive website should not subject the operator to jurisdiction anywhere in the world. Rather, 

there must be evidence that the defendant ‘purposefully availed’ itself of conducting activity in 

the forum state, by directly targeting its web site to the state, knowingly interacting with 

residents of the forum state via its web site, or through sufficient other related contacts.” Toys 

“R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 454 (3rd Cir. 2003). 

 4. In this case, plaintiff has failed to show a basis for personal jurisdiction arising 

from the existence and operation of theartofseduction.com. First, nothing in that web site 

demonstrates that it is targeted specifically toward residents of Pennsylvania, as opposed to the 

world generally. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. 

 5. First, the Terms and Conditions page of the web site (appended hereto as Exhibit 

A), under the heading SHIPMENT AND PURCHASE RESTRICTIONS, states that “[p]roducts 

sold on the Store currently will not be sold or shipped to residents of Pennsylvania.” Further, as 

demonstrated in Exhibit B, a consumer using the online form to purchase products from LTSC is 

not able to select Pennsylvania as an address to which to ship the goods, as Pennsylvania is not 

included in the menu of available states.2

 6. There is no allegation or evidence of any sales to Pennsylvania. The 

 

v. General Dynamics Corp., 801 F.Supp. 597, 605 (M.D. Fla. 2002). LTSC respectfully submits 

that plaintiff has not made any such showing. 

2

 As web pages are capable of accurate and ready determination, the Court can take 

judicial notice of the existence of their contents. Doron Precision Systems, Inc. v. FAAC, Inc., 

423 F.Supp.2d 173, 179 n. 8 (S.D,N.Y. 2006). See also Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company v. UHaul Intern., Inc., 327 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1042 (E.D. Mo. 2004) (court could consider defendant’s 

website in assessing whether there is personal jurisdiction). It is particularly appropriate here, as

plaintiff is relying on LTSC’s web site in attempting to establish jurisdiction, and so under 

F.R.E. 106 and 1001 it is proper for the Court to consider all relevant portions of the web site. 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 54 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 3
3

uncontradicted evidence us that there could not be any sales to Pennsylvania. There is no 

evidence of any other contacts between LTSC and Pennsylvania. There is no allegation of any 

other sufficient jurisdictional contact with Pennsylvania. As such, plaintiff’s “newly discovered 

evidence” is legally insufficient. 

 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, defendant Learn The Skills Corp. respectfully 

requests that the Court deny the Motion in its entirety. 

Dated: July 20, 2006 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ William R. Firth, III________________ 

 William R. Firth, III 

 Marks & Sokolov, LLC 

 1835 Market Street, 6th floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 Tel: (215) 569-8901 

 Attorney for defendant Learn The Skills 

 Corp. 

Of counsel: 

David L. Finger 

Finger & Slanina, LLC 

One Commerce Center 

1201 Orange Street, Suite 725 

Wilmington, DE 19801-1155 

(302) 884-6766 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 54 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 3