## Facts

- In 1963, Helen Abdouch received an inscribed copy of *Revolutionary Road* bearing her name; the book was later stolen.
- In 2009, Ken Lopez, through Ken Lopez Bookseller (KLB) in Massachusetts, bought the inscribed copy from a seller in Georgia and sold it to a buyer outside Nebraska.
- KLB operated a commercial website allowing users to browse and purchase rare books and also distributed catalogs to an active mailing list of about 1,000 customers, including two Nebraska residents.
- KLB was not registered to do business in Nebraska, had no property there, did not advertise in Nebraska publications, and made under $615 in sales to Nebraska residents from 2009 to 2011 (out of about $3.9 million total sales).
- After selling the book, KLB kept an online listing for more than three years showing the book as “SOLD,” including a photograph of the inscription with Abdouch’s name.
- Abdouch sued Lopez and KLB in Nebraska state court for invasion of privacy based on the continued online display of her name and the inscription.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Abdouch appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Lopez and KLB had contacts with Nebraska that were continuous and systematic enough to support general personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether specific personal jurisdiction existed because Abdouch’s invasion-of-privacy claim arose out of or related to defendants’ Nebraska contacts, including operation of an interactive commercial website.
3. Whether, under the intentional-tort “effects” test, defendants’ online posting was expressly aimed at Nebraska such that defendants should reasonably anticipate being sued there.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Defendants’ Nebraska contacts, including the website and minimal Nebraska sales, were insufficient for general jurisdiction.
- Specific jurisdiction was absent because the claim did not arise out of Nebraska-related contacts; the book transaction occurred through a Georgia seller and a non-Nebraska buyer.
- The intentional-tort “effects” theory failed because the online listing was globally accessible but not expressly directed at Nebraska.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires minimum contacts with the forum such that exercising jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- General jurisdiction requires substantial, continuous, and systematic forum contacts that render a defendant essentially at home in the forum.
- Specific jurisdiction requires a nexus between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim.
- For internet activity, courts consider the level of website interactivity and commercial activity, but specific jurisdiction still requires that the forum-related conduct be connected to the cause of action.
- In intentional-tort cases, foreseeable in-forum effects are insufficient by themselves; the defendant’s conduct must be expressly aimed at the forum.

## Conclusion

Nebraska courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state bookseller where the defendants’ in-state sales and contacts were minimal, the alleged privacy injury did not arise from Nebraska-related transactions, and the challenged online listing was not expressly directed at Nebraska.


Abdouch v. Lopez, 829 N.W.2d 662 (Neb. 2013)