2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-14-2005 

# W ellnes s Publi shing v

. B arefo ot P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3919

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" W ellne s s P ub l i shin g v

. B ar efoot " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1365. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1365NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 03- 3919

W E L L N E S S P U B L IS H IN G ; H O L T M .D . C O N S U L T IN G , IN C .; N A T U R E ' S B E N E F IT , IN C .; S T E P H E N H O L T , M .D .,

A p p e llan ts v. ROBERT R. B AREFOO T; DEONNAENTERPRI SES, I NC.; HOPH MARKETI

NG, I NC.; SCO TTMILLER; KEVI

N T RUDEAU ; ST EVEND. RI TCH EY ; ALLENSTE RN ; DONALD W. BARRETT, J R.; TRAID DIRECT RES PONSE MARKETI NG, I NC.; KI NG MEDIA, I

NC.; DIRECT MARKETI NG CONCEPTS, I

NC.; SHOP-AMERI CA, I NC.; ADVAN CED NUTRI TI ONAL I NNOVA TI ONS, I

NC.

ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY (D ist . C o u rtN o . 0 2 -37 7 3 (JA P )) D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

A r gued J anuary18, 2005 B efore: A L ITO , M C K E E , and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2005)2 C ouns el f orAppel lant A l an L. Z egas ( A r gued) L aw O ffi ces of A l an L. Z egas 552 M ai n St r eet C hatham, N J 07928 K eith N . B iebe lberg B ieb e lb e rg & M a rtin 374 M i l l burn A venue M i l l burn, N J 07041 C ouns el f orAppel l ee s R obertJ . G i l s on ( A r gued) R i k e r , Da n z i g , S c h e r e r , Hy l a n d & Pe rr e t t i LLP O ne Speedw el l A venue M orr i s t ow n, N J 07962 D ani el J . H ur t ado ( A r gued) J e n n e r& Bl o c k LLP O ne I B M Pl aza C hi cago, I L 60611 D avi d E . D eLore nzi T im o th yS . S u sa n in G i bbons , D el D eo, D ol an, G r i ffi nger& V ecc hi one O ne R i ver fr ontPl aza N ew ark, N J 07102

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: S tep h e n H o lt an d th re e c o m p a n ies a ss o c iate d w ith h im , W e lln e ss P u b lish in g , H o lt M D C ons ul t i ng, I nc. and N atur e’ s B enef i t , I nc. ( her ei naft er“H ol t ”) , fi l ed an a ct i on i n the3

U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforN ew J er s eyagai ns ts ever al defe ndant s , al l egi ng br eac h of contr act , m i s appr opr i at i on of a c opyr i ght ed w or k, vi ol at i ons of the Lanham A ct , comm on law b u sine ss torts, an d tort iou s interfe ren ce w ith a c o n tr ac t. A ll o f th ese claim s co n ce rn the adve r t i s i ng, s al e, and di s tr i but i on of cor al cal ci um s uppl ement s and r el at ed pr om ot i onal m at er i al s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e forl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. T he pl ai nt i ffs then s ett l ed w i th defe ndant s R obertB ar efoot , D eonna E nt erpr i s es , H oph M arket i ng, and ScottM i l l er , and the pl ai nt i ffs t ook the pr es entappea l t o cont es tthe di s m i s s al of thei rcl ai m s w i th r es pectt o the r emai ni ng defe ndant s . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derw i th r egar d t o tw o gr oups of defe ndant s : ( 1) K evi n T rudeau a nd Shop A m er i ca ( her ei naft ercol l ect i vel y“Shop A m er i ca” ) and ( 2) D i r ectM arket i ng C oncept s , T r i ad D i r ectR es pons e M arket i ng, K i ng M e d ia, S tev e n R itch e y , A llen S ter n , an d D o n a ld B a rre tt, Jr. (h e re in a f ter c o llec tiv e ly “D M C ”) . H ow ever , w e af fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derw i th r egar d t o A dvance d N u triti o n a l In n o v a tio n s, In c . B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , w e p ro c e e d d ire c tly t o the subst ance o f t he jur i sdi ct i on al i ssues. I. C ontr aryt o t he ar gum entof the appe l l ees , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derof J une 30, 2003, w hi ch di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntforl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on, even though t he not i ce of appea l s t at es thatthe or derbei ng appea l ed is th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o f A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , w h ich d e n ied th e p lain tiff s’ m o tio n to4

amend t he or derof J une 30, 2003. “W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overor der s not s peci fi ed i n the not i ce of appea l i f ther e i s a conne ct i on betw een the s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der , the i nt ent i on t o appea l the uns peci fi ed or deri s appar entand the o p p o s i n g p a r tyi s n o tp r e j u d i c e d a n d h a s a f

u l l o p p o r tu n i tyt o b r i e f

th e i s s u e s . ” W i l l i a ms v . G u z z a rd i, 87 5 F .2 d 4 6 , 4 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). H e re , the re q u isite c o n n e c tio n e x ists betw een the or derdi s m i s s i ng the ca s e and the or derdeny i ng the mot i on t o amend t hat or der , and H ol t ’ s i nt ent i on t o appea l the di s pos i t i ve or deri s appar entfr om the i s s ues addr es s ed i n t he br i ef. Fi nal l y , appel l ees have made no s how i ng thattheyw oul d be p re ju d ice d b yth e e x e rc ise o f a p p e llate ju risd ictio n . T h e re f o re , the p lain tiff

s’ f a ilu re to sp e c if yth e p ro p e r o rd e r in h is n o tice o f a p p e a l w a s h a rm les s e rro r, an d ju risd ictio n is pr oper . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ert ai n L and i n the C i tyof Pat er s on, 322 F. 2d 866, 869- 70 (3 d C ir . 1 9 6 3 ). II. A p lain tiff

b e a rs “ th e b u rd e n o f

d e m o n stra tin g [ th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts’] c o n tac ts w ith the forum s t at e [a r e] s uffi ci entt o gi ve the courti n per s onam j ur i s di ct i on. ” M es al i c v. F ib e rf lo a t C o rp ., 8 9 7 F .2 d 6 9 6 , 6 9 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). T h e se c o n tac ts m u st b e sh o w n “ w ith rea so n ab le pa rt icularity . ” M ell o n B an k v . F arino , 9 6 0 F . 2 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). In c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n to d ism iss o n th e b a sis o f a f f id a v its, a D istric t C o u rt m u st re so lv e a ll m at er i al fac tual di s put es i n favorof the pl ai nt i ffs . Pi nkerv. R oche H ol di ngs , L t d. , 292 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e th e r a g iv e n se t o f c o n tac ts is s u f

f icie n t to c re a teG i ven the l i m i t ed s cope of defe ndant s ’ cont act s w i th N ew J er s eyan ana l y s i s of 1 g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i s n o tn e c e s s a r y. G i ven the s t at e of the r ecor d, on r emand t he D i s tr i ctC our tm ayaddr es s the 2 q u e stio n o f

w h e th e r th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts R itch e y , S ter n a n d B a rre tt are n o t su b jec t to per s onal j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the r el evantcont act s w er e es t abl i s hed i n thei rr ol es as 5 per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i s a ques t i on of l aw , and ther efor e ourr evi ew i s pl enary . I d. at1221. P erso n al j u ri sd ict ion ca n b e e ith er g en era l or sp ec ifi c. S p ec ifi c jurisdicti o n o v er a 1 d ef en d an t can b e e stab li sh ed w h en the c lai m is r elated to o r arises o u t of the d ef en d an t’ s forum - r el at ed ac t i vi t i es s uch thatthe def endants houl d r eas onabl yant i ci pat e bei ng hal ed i n t o c o u r tth e r e . Bu r g e rKi n g Co rp . v . Ru d z e wi c z , 4 7 1 U. S . 4 6 2 , 4 7 4 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; I mo I ndus tr i es , I nc. v. K i ekertA G , 155 F. 3d 254, 259 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . O nce mi ni m um c o n tac ts a re e sta b lish e d , jur isd ictio n m a yb e e x e rc ise d w h e n th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t to d o s o w o u ld c o m p o rt w ith tr a d itio n a l n o tio n s o f f a irp la ya n d s u b s ta n tia l ju s tic e . V etr ot ex, 75 F. 3d at150- 51. III . T h e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its ru lin g th a t n o n e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts’ c o n tac ts w ith N ew J er s eyw er e r el at ed t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ caus es of ac t i on. T he di s cus s i on bel ow addr es s es th e ju risd ictio n a l q u e stio n w ith re sp e c t to th e d istin c t g ro u p s o f d e f e n d a n ts re m a in in g in the ca s e. A. T h e D M C d e f

e n d a n t g ro u p is c o m p rise d o f S tev e n R itch e y , A llen S ter n , D o n a ld B a rre tt, T ria d M a rk e tin g , K in g M e d ia, a n d D ire c t M a rk e tin g C o n c e p ts. T h e a f f id a v its 2corpor at e off i cer s . See Educat i onal T es t i ng Ser vi ce v. K at zman, 631 F. Supp. 550, 556- 5 9 (D . N . J. 1 9 8 6 ). T he fa ctthatthe def

endant s forw ar ded pr oces s ed or der s t o cent er s w her e the 3 ad v erti sed p rod u ct w as p ac k ag ed an d sh ipp ed d o es n o t r ed u ce the s ign ifi ca n ce o f D M C ’s es s ent i al r ol e. 6 and depos i t i ons s ubm i t t ed ar e s uffi ci entt o s uppor tH ol t ’ s cl ai m thatthes e corpor at i ons w or ked i n conce r tt o pr oduce a nd di s tr i but e an i nfom er ci al and t o pr oces s t el ephone or der s forthe ca l ci um s uppl ement s and books pr om ot ed i n thati nfom er ci al . B etw een J anuary2002 and Sept ember2002, the i nfom er ci al r es ul t ed i n appr oxi m at el y6, 856 s al es t o c u s t o me r s i n Ne w J e r s e yt o t a l i n g o v e r$ 8 2 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 wo r th o f me r c h a n d i s e . ( DM C B ri e f a t 1 1 .) H oltcl ai m s that the p rom oti on and dis tri bu t i on of the bo ok s The C al ci um Fact or and D eath by D i et

i nfr i nge on hi s copyr i ghtt o the book B ar ef ooton C or alC al ci um . T hes e cl ai m s ar i s e outof D M C ’ s act i vi tyi n N ew J er s eybeca us e D M C di s tr i but ed the al l egedl yi nfr i ngi ng books t o N ew J er s eyr es i dent s . T her e w as nothi ng for tui t ous about the pr es ence of thes e books i n N ew J er s ey–D M C advert i s ed the books t o N ew J er s ey cus t om er s , ans w er ed the phone w hen thos e cus t om er s cal l ed, and then arr anged t o have th e b o o k s s h ip p e d to N e w Je rse ya d d re ss e s. T h e m isa p p ro p ria tio n c laim s a re c lea rly 3
re late d to th e d istrib u tio n o f th e in f rin g in g b o o k s, a n d b e c a u se th e b o o k s w e re k n o w in g ly se n t to N e w Je rse yb yD M C , D M C sh o u ld e x p e c t to b e su b jec t to ju risd ictio n in th a t s t at e. H ol tal l eges thatD M C vi ol at ed the Lanham A ct , 15 U . S. C . § 1125( a) , and7

comm on l aw pr ohi bi t i ons on fal s e adve r t i s i ng on the bas i s of s t at ement s m ade i n C or al Ca l c i u m I. T hes e cl ai m s ar e r el at ed t o D M C ’ s act i vi tyi n N ew J er s eybeca us e the br oadca s t s w hi ch form the bas i s of the cl ai m s w er e vi ew ed i n N ew J er s ey . I ti s true that an adve r t i s i ng campai gn w i th nat i onal s cope doe s notbyi t s el f gi ve r i s e t o gener al j ur i s di ct i on i n a s t at e w her e i ti s br oadca s t . See, e. g. , G ehl i ng v. St . G eor ge’ s Sch. of M ed. , L t d. . 773 F. 2d 539 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ; G i angol a v. W al tD i s neyW or l d C o. , 753 F .S u p p . 1 4 8 (D .N .J. 1 9 9 0 ). T h a t p rin c ip le is in a p p lica b le to th is c a se , h o w e v e r. F irst, thos e pr ece dent s i nvol ve i nj ur i es unr el at ed t o the br oadca s tof the adve r t i s ementi n the forum s t at e, and ther efor e ar e i nappl i cabl e t o a s peci fi c- j ur i s di ct i on i nqui ry . A cl ai m of fal s e adve r t i s i ng, and the i nj urythatr es ul t s fr om fal s e adve r t i s i ng, ar e i nextr i cabl yr el at ed to th e b ro a d c a st o f

th e a lleg e d lyf

a lse a d v e rtise m e n t. S e c o n d , the a d v e rtise m e n t in th is cas e i nduced vi ew er s t o es t abl i s h di r ectcont actw i th D M C bycal l i ng i t s t ol l - fr ee phone num bert o pl ace or der s . T hi s i nducementdes tr oy s anys embl ance of the pas s i ve advert i s i ng addr es s ed i n G i angol a, 153 F. Supp. at155- 56, w hi ch expr es s l ydi s t i ngui s hed advert i s ement s i n t he form of di r ectm ai l s ol i ci t at i ons . Forpurpos es of j ur i s di ct i onal anal y s i s , an i nfom er ci al br oadca s tthatgener at es t el ephone c us t om er s i s the equi val entof an i nt er act i ve w eb- s i t e thr ough w hi ch a de fenda ntpurpos eful l ydi r ect s i t s comm er ci al eff or t s t ow ar ds r es i dent s of a f orum s t at e. See Toy s “R ” U s , I nc. v. St ep Tw o, S. A . , 318 F. 3d 446, 452 ( di s cus s i ng Z i ppo M fg. C o. v. Z i ppo D otC om , I nc. , 952 F. Supp. 1119 ( W. D. P a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . Un d e rth e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , i ti s b o th r e a s o n a b l e a n d f a i rf o rth e DM C8

defe ndant s t o appea ri n a N ew J er s eycourtt o ans w erchar ges r el at ed t o the br oadca s tof th is in f o m e rc ial. Fi nal l y , H ol tal l eges thatD M C t or t i ous l yi nt er fer ed w i th a contr actexi s t i ng betw een H ol tand R obertB ar efootbyfea tur i ng B ar efooti n the cor al cal ci um i nfom er ci al and otherw i s e us i ng B ar efoott o pr om ot e thei rpr oduct . T hi s cl ai m cal l s foran ap p li ca ti o n o f th e “ ef

fe cts” a n aly sis set fo rth in C alde r v. Jon es, 46 5 U . S . 7 8 3 (19 8 4 ); R emi ck v. M anfr edy , 238 F. 3d 248, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n R emi ck, thi s courthel d that beca us e the bene fi ci aryof a c ontr actr es i ded and w or ked i n Penns y l vani a, “the ef fec t s of anyi nt ent i onal conductbythe def endant s des i gned t o i nt er fer e w i th . . . contr actual r el at i ons . . . nece s s ar i l yw oul d have be en fe l ti n Penns y l vani a. ” R emi ck, 238 F. 3d at 2 6 0 . H o lt , as a reside n t of N ew Jerse y , su ff

ere d the a ll eg ed injuryresu lt ing fro m D M C ’s i nt ent i onal conducti n N ew J er s ey . I n thi s s ens e, al though D M C ’ s bus i nes s s tr at egym ay n o t hav e targ eted N ew Jerse y , w ith reg ard to H o lt ’s co n tr ac t w ith B are fo o t, D M C ’s a l l e g e d i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e wa s e x p r e s s l ya i me d a tth e f o ru m. B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatm i ni m um cont act s di d notexi s t , no ru l i n g w a s m a d e o n w h e th e rth e e x e r c i s e o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e D MC defe ndant s w oul d comportw i th s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. I ti s appar entfr om the r ecor d, h o w e v e r, th a t co n sid e ra tio n s o f su b sta n tial ju stic e d o n o t co u n se l ag a in st ju risd ictio n in thi s cas e. A l though r ece i pt s fr om N ew J er s eycus t om er s w er e a s m al l per cent age of D M C ’ s t ot al bus i nes s , thos e r ece i pt s w er e s ubs t ant i al i n abs ol ut e t erm s and r efl ect ed the9

s i ze of the s t at e’ s economyr el at i ve t o the nat i onal m arket . Fur therm or e, N ew J er s eyhas a s ubs t ant i al i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng i t s gener al popul at i on fr om al l egedl ym i s l eadi ng adv ert i si ng and al so i n v i nd i cat i ng H olt ’s ri gh t s. B. T he Shop A m er i ca de fenda ntgr oup i s compri s ed of Shop A m er i ca L. L . C . and K evi n T rudeau. T rudeau a nd Shop A m er i ca w or ked i n conce r tt o pr oduce a s econd i nfom er ci al fea tur i ng R obertB ar efootand t o pr oces s t el ephone or der s forthe ca l ci um supp l em ents and bo ok s prom oted i n thati nfo m erci al . T hat i nfo m erci al res ult ed in atl east 22, 352 or der s fr om N ew J er s eycus t om er s r epr es ent i ng appr oxi m at el y$1. 14 m i l l i on of m e rc h a n d is e . (S h o p A m e ri c a B ri e f a t 0 1 1 .) H ol tbr i ngs the s ame al l egat i ons of copyr i ghti nfr i ngement , fal s e adve r t i s i ng and to rt io u s in te rf

e re n c e a g a in s t S h o p A m e ri c a a s h e a lle g e s a g a in s t th e D M C d e f e n d a n ts . W hil e t he co ntact s of S ho p A m eri ca are ent i rel ydis t i nct fr om the D M C group , and m ust be i ndepende nt l ys uffi ci enti n or dert o s uppor tper s onal j ur i s di ct i on, the s ame l egal anal y s i s appl i es t o both gr oups . L i ke D M C , how ever , Shop A m er i ca di s tr i but ed copi es of The C al ci um Factorand D eath B y D i et in N e w Je rse y , u se d R o b e rt B a re f o o t to p ro m o te thei rcor al cal ci um pr oduct , pr oduced a n i nfom er ci al vi ew ed i n N ew J er s eyand pr oces s ed or der s form er chandi s e fr om N ew J er s eycus t om er s . B eca us e the natur e and s cope of S h o p A m erica’s c o n tacts w ith N ew Jerse y , D r. H o lt , an d the lit igation at ha n d are s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame as thos e expl or ed above r el at i ng t o the D M C gr oup, w e hol d thatp erso n al j u ri sd ict ion o v er the S h o p A m erica d ef en d an ts i s p rop er. C. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound no per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overA dvance d N utr i t i onal Innov at i on s, Inc. (“A N I”) . A l tho ug h H oltst at es i n h i s com plai nt that A N I m ade f al se s t at ement s t o s om e of H ol t ’ s N ew J er s eycus t om er s , thi s al l egat i on does nots erve as t he b a sis o f a n yc laim m a d e a g a in st A N I, n o r w a s it th e su b jec t o f d isc o v e ry , n o r d id H o lt otherw i s e s ubs t ant i at e thi s al l egat i on befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t . A N I had no r ol e i n the p ro d u c tio n o r d istrib u tio n o f th e in f o m e rc ials th a t se rv e a s th e c e n terp iec e o f th is lit ig a tio n , n o r is th e re a n yc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n R o b e rt B a re f o o t an d A N I. W ith re g a rd to th is d e f e n d a n t, H o lt d id n o t m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p lea d in g ju risd ictio n a l f a c ts w ith r e a s o n a b l e p a r t i c u l a r i ty. I V. F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt w ith re g a rd to A dvance d N utr i t i onal I nnovat i ons , I nc. and r ever s e w i th r egar d t o K evi n T rudeau, Shop A m er i ca, D i r ectM arket i ng C oncept s , T r i ad D i r ectR es pons e M arket i ng, K i ng M edi a, S tev e n R itch e y , A llen S ter n , an d D o n a ld B a rre tt.