The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that despite the fact that defendant did business in the United States, there was not personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s claim did not relate to the defendant’s contacts with the United States. In Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., ______ F.3d _____, (11th Cir. 2009), WL 330935, February 12, 2009. Defendant was a Costa Rican corporation owned by two citizens of the United States. The corporation owned and operated a fishing village and resort in Costa Rico named “Parrot Bay Village.” Plaintiff, a Florida resident, came across a website for the Village whose mailing address was in New Jersey and he made reservations at the resort through the internet.
Plaintiff, while on a charter boat arranged for by the defendant, but not owned or operated by it, was injured and sued the corporation. He obtained a default judgment and defendant moved to vacate it on the ground that it was void because there was no personal jurisdiction. In discussing the plaintiffs reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), which, in cases where a defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any states’ courts of general jurisdiction, authorizes a district court to aggregate a foreign defendants’ nationwide contacts to allow for service of process if two conditions are met: 1) the claims must “arise under federal law” and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction must “be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
With respect to the first condition, it was satisfied because the claim arose under Maritime Law. However, the second condition was not met because the plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of or relate to Parrot Bay Village’s contacts with the United States. The Court pointed out:
“Parrot Bay Village’s internet contacts with the United States were related to Oldfield’s negligence claim, but only in the sense that but – for the website being made available to United States residents Oldfield would not have gone to Costa Rico, boarded the fishing boat and suffered an injury. The problem with this but – for approach is that it is over-inclusive making any cause of action, no matter how unforeseeable, necessarily “related to” the initial contact. The Court held that it was apparent that the nexus between Oldfield’s injury and the internet contact is too remote to satisfy the relatedness requirement and therefore set aside the default judgment because the district court erred in exercising specific personal jurisdiction.”