Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personal Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Grills Parties On Long‑arm Jurisdiction in International DJ Dispute
Summary
A Massachusetts performer challenged dismissal of defamation and contract‑interference claims against out‑of‑state defendants, arguing their promotional contacts and online activity gave rise to specific jurisdiction; appellees countered that contacts were sporadic, unauthenticated and section 3D arguments were waived.
In the final matter, the panel considered whether Massachusetts courts may assert specific personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a dispute arising from the music/DJ scene.
Appellant counsel Anthony Panabianco argued that defendants’ promotion, online presence and prior performances in Massachusetts created a persistent course of conduct, invoking Chapter 223A’s long‑arm provisions (Sections 3A, 3C and 3D). He said the defendants’ social media and tour promotions showed regular solicitation and connection to the Commonwealth.
Appellees’ counsel Taylor Maxson replied that the evidence of in‑state contacts was sporadic and years old, that many documents were unauthenticated or hearsay, and that the section 3D arguments were not raised in the briefs and therefore waived. The bench pressed the parties to identify the causal nexus between in‑state events and the asserted torts.
The court submitted the matter for decision after robust questioning about whether isolated gigs or online promotion suffice to establish jurisdiction.
