Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In August 2018 Ds moved to dismiss P's claims against them on the ground, inter that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. The court granted their motions. The court rejected P's theory of personal jurisdiction. P contends that Ds have the required minimum contacts because their webpage-mixi.mn-caused visitors' web browsers-including web browsers located in this district to connect automatically to a different website. The court cited and applied Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). All mixi.mn does is provide a five-second view before the visitors are redirected to another website, operated by Wolfson Berg but not by Ds. There is no viewing of advertising or exchanging of information on the mixi.mn webpage itself that is commercial in nature. The fact that the webpage sends digital instructions to a visitor's computer does not render the webpage owner subject to personal jurisdiction. P moves for reconsideration, contending that the court's focus on the visible, rather than the invisible, aspects of mixi.mn was a manifest error of fact. P reurges its argument that mixi.mn can support personal jurisdiction under the Zippo test.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.