Opinion ID: 158899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: licensed to do business in this state;

Text: 17 3. owning, leasing, or controlling property (real or personal) or assets in this state; 4. maintaining employees, offices, agents, or bank accounts in this state; 18 5. present in that shareholders reside in this state; 19 6. maintaining phone or fax listings within this state; 20 7. advertising or soliciting business in this state; 21 8. traveling to this state by way of salespersons, etc.; 22 9. paying taxes in this state; 23 10. visiting potential customers in this state; 24 11. recruiting employees in the state; 25 12. generating a substantial percentage of its national sales through revenue generated from in-state customers. 26 Buddensick, 972 P.2d at 930-31. It is undisputed that SCB does none of those things. Soma argues that, because SCB filed a small number of UCC financing statements and recorded several instruments in Utah, all evidencing various SCB security interests, and because it filed five civil cases in Utah prior to 1992 to recover monies and/or foreclose on trust deeds, SCB is subject to general jurisdiction. We disagree. Those are not the kinds of activities which Utah courts, and federal courts applying Utah law, have held constitute the kind of substantial and continuous local activity necessary to subject SCB to general jurisdiction. See, e.g., Beck v. D'Amour S.A., 923 F. Supp. 196, 199-200 (D. Utah 1996); Harnischfeger Eng'rs, Inc., 883 F. Supp. at 612; Frontier Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. National Hotel Corp., 675 F. Supp. 1293, 1296 (D. Utah 1987); Buddensick, 972 P.2d at 931. 27 Soma further argues SCB's maintenance of a website, accessible from Utah, also constitutes substantial and continuous local activity for general jurisdiction purposes. While neither our court nor the Utah Supreme Court has specifically addressed this issue yet, a federal district court judge in Utah has addressed the circumstances in which a website will subject an entity to personal jurisdiction in Utah. See Patriot Systems, Inc. v. C-Cubed Corp., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1323-24 (D. Utah 1998). The court in Patriot Systems adopted the analysis of several other courts, which reveals three general categories along a 'sliding scale' for evaluating jurisdiction. Id. at 1324. The categories are as follows: 28 First, personal jurisdiction is established when a defendant clearly does business over the Internet, such as entering into contracts which require the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet. Second, exercising personal jurisdiction is not appropriate when the Internet use involves [a] passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it. Under these circumstances, a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. Third, a middle category encompasses interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate depends upon the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site. 29 Id. (quoting Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1123-24 (W.D. Pa. 1997)) (other quotations omitted); see also Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir., 1999) (adopting Zippo court analysis); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that the common thread [in cases involving jurisdiction via an Internet website], well stated by the district court in Zippo, is that 'the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.') (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124); SF Hotel Co. v. Energy Invs., Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1032, 1034 (D. Kan. 1997). 30 In its response to SCB's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Soma alleged that Standard Chartered maintains an internet website offering information concerning Standard Chartered's services and soliciting business from all over the planet, which allows access from anywhere, including Utah. Pl.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Opp'n to [SCB's] Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction at 7, Appellant's App. Vol. I at 81-G. It referenced an Exhibit A-1, which was not included in the record on appeal. The record does include a copy of pages from SCB's website dated January 28, 1998. Appellant's App. Vol. III at 268-285. The district court did not specifically address the website in its jurisdictional analysis. 31 Assuming Soma adequately raised the issue of the website before the district court, we have no difficulty concluding that it is the type of website which does not subject its creator, SCB, to personal jurisdiction in Utah, under any standard promulgated by any court. The website appears to be a passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested and one in which SCB has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. Zippo Mfg. Co., 952 F. Supp. at 1124. Soma has failed to carry even its relatively light burden of making a prima facie showing that the website is anything more than such a passive informational site. Cf. Purco Fleet Servs., Inc. v. Towers, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1324 (D. Utah 1999) (noting that plaintiff has shown that [defendant] used its web site to solicit business from a Utah resident). 32 We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that Soma has failed to make a prima facie case that SCB is engaged in the kind of substantial and continuous local activity necessary to subject SCB to general personal jurisdiction.