992 F.Supp. 44 (1998)
This was a defamation case revolving around a statement published on the internet by defendant user concerning plaintiffs. Defendant internet provider filed a motion for summary judgment and defendant user filed a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court and plaintiffs conceded that defendant provider was entitled to summary judgment with respect to the claims concerning the defamatory headline, which appeared on defendant user's web site, but did not appear on the AOL service.
- However, the court held that defendant user's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction would not be granted because the District of Columbia gained jurisdiction over defendant user through its long arm statute.
- Defendant user had enough sufficient minimum contacts with the jurisdiction of the court that maintenance of a suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- Therefore, his motion was denied.
The court granted defendant internet provider's motion to issue a summary judgment in its favor and denied defendant user's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that defendant user was not entitled to have his motion granted because the court had sufficient personal jurisdiction over him to maintain a defamation suit for a statement published on the internet.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law