Personal Jurisdiction Quiz

1.  Defendant Golf, Inc. is incorporated in California and has its principal place of business in California. It is being sued in Indiana. Golf, Inc. sells golf equipment on its website (www.golfinc.com). Five percent of its online customers, comprising $50,000 worth of sales annually, are Indiana residents. Golf, Inc. has no other contacts with Indiana.

A.  Does Indiana have general jurisdiction over Golf, Inc.?  

B.  Does Indiana have specific jurisdiction over a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff, an Indiana resident, is suing Golf, Inc. claiming that the golf equipment plaintiff purchased from Golf, Inc.’s website and had delivered to him in Indiana is defective?

C.  Suppose Golf, Inc. only sells instructional videos to help purchasers improve their golf game rather than golf equipment. Customers buy these videos on Golf, Inc.’s website using a credit card.  After purchasing a video, customers download the videos to their computer. Plaintiff, an Indiana resident, purchased several sets of instructional videos from Golf, Inc. Plaintiff is now suing Golf, Inc. in Indiana for breach of contract claiming the videos are defective. Is there personal jurisdiction over Golf, Inc. in Indiana?

D.  Suppose Golf, Inc. only provides information about golf equipment and places to play golf on its website, but does not sell anything. Visitors to the site can send questions to Golf, Inc.’s experts and those questions will be answered by e-mail. Can Golf, Inc. be sued in Indiana by a resident of that state asserting that Golf, Inc. is guilty of fraud in the inducement by promoting an expensive golf resort in California that plaintiff visited on Golf, Inc.’s recommendation and that turned out not to have an 18-hole golf course?

2.  Golf, Inc., a California corporation that sells golf equipment through its golfinc.com website, sues defendant, an Indiana resident, for breach of contract in California. Defendant failed to pay for $10,000 worth of golf equipment that defendant ordered from Golf, Inc. Defendant purchased the equipment from Golf, Inc. over its website and otherwise conducts no business in California and has no other contacts with California. Is there personal jurisdiction over the defendant in California?

3.  Would your answer to Question 2 change if Golf, Inc.’s website contained a terms of use agreement and, under the provisions of that agreement, purchasers of golf equipment from Golf Inc.’s website agree to be sued in California for lawsuits instituted by Golf, Inc. arising out of the purchase of the equipment?

4.  Golf, Inc. is suing Get Golf, a golf information website, for defamation. Get Golf has a website (www.getgolf.com) that contains a blog written by Get Golf’s president and sole employee that includes very negative comments about the equipment sold by Golf, Inc. Golf, Inc. claims the comments are untrue and defamatory. Get Golf has its principal and only place of business in Indiana. Get Golf does not sell products on its website and conducts no business in California except that visitors to the website and readers of the blog at issue reside in all 50 states. Get Golf’s income is generated by advertising on its website. The volume of visitors to Get Golf’s website determines the amount that advertisers pay Get Golf for advertising that appears on its website. Golf, Inc. has filed suit in California. Is Get Golf subject to personal jurisdiction in California ? Are there other facts that would help you decide the answer to this question?

5.  Suppose Get Golf is called Get Golf Indiana and only provides information about playing golf in Indiana by discussing golf courses and golf equipment dealers in Indiana. If Get Golf Indiana defames Golf, Inc.’s equipment on its blog can Get Golf Indiana be sued in California?