Court Opinion

ID: 9787726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:23:12.728062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:59.753358
License: Public Domain

ESPINOSA, Judge,
specially concurring.
¶ 34 I concur with my colleagues but add this comment to emphasize that, in this age of increasingly widespread Internet commerce, our decision does not foreclose the possibility that Arizona could exercise jurisdiction over an eBay seller under appropriate circumstances. A seller who markets his wares with an “intent to sell across America” by utilizing a nationally promoted and nationally available forum such as eBay may well be explicitly directing a purposeful activity into all fifty states. See Uberti, 181 Ariz. at 573, 892 P.2d at 1362. Indeed, that would appear to be the whole point of utilizing the boundless eBay cyber marketplace. But that conclusion cannot be definitively reached from the bare record presented here and thus cannot support a determination that the trial court erred. As noted in footnotes four and six of our decision, given the skeletal facts we have been provided, Holland simply has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case for the existence of personal jurisdiction.