Bellino v. Simo

1999 WL 1059753

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Bellino (Ps) filed an action alleging defamation, fraud, and deceptive trade practices by Simon (D) and Spence (D1). None of the parties are residents of Louisiana, and one of the Ps (FDS) is a sole proprietorship with its principal place of business in California. D was a resident of New York, and president of a New York company and D1 was a resident of Pennsylvania and was the manager of a limited liability company. Both Ds were engaged in the business of selling and buying and authenticating sports memorabilia and autographs. Ps asserted that Ds had made defamatory statements to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs and that these caused the suspension of P's business from eBay. Ps also contend that Ds' defamatory statements to Aubert, a Louisiana resident caused Aubert to return two baseball cards he had purchased from Ps. Ps claimed injury suffered in Louisiana and a lost sale in the amount of $25,000 and the loss of future business. Ps asserted these claims under general jurisdiction because D had a website on the internet. Ps also claim specific jurisdiction as Ds reached out to commit intentional torts in Louisiana against P. Aubert had contacted D through D's corporate website, and the parties exchanged information by email. Eventually, the parties conversed on the phone. D essentially told Aubert that the cards were forgeries. On D's recommendation, Aubert contacted D1 to verify that claim. D1 allegedly defamed P in a phone call but D1 eventually told Aubert that he would not authenticate the cards. Even though a subsequent examination did authenticate the cards, Aubert returned them based on Ds' defamatory remarks about Ps. The law firm that Aubert is a partner in eventually represented Ps in this matter but Aubert claims that his relations with Ps are unsalvageable. Aubert eventually listed the two cards on eBay and they sold for $25,000; this may have been done to defray Ps' legal bills. Ds moved to dismiss because of lack of personal jurisdiction.