## Facts

- Stacy Elena Rios, a Connecticut resident, applied for a restraining order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15 against Christopher Fergusan, the father of her child and a North Carolina resident.
- Rios alleged a history of controlling behavior and threats by Fergusan and testified she moved from North Carolina to Connecticut in part because she feared him.
- After Rios relocated to Connecticut, Fergusan—while in North Carolina—created and posted a “rap” video on YouTube in which he threatened to shoot and kill Rios.
- The video identified Rios by name and displayed her photograph, and the court found the threat was directed at her in Connecticut and intended to frighten her where she lived.
- On September 16, 2008, the Connecticut Superior Court issued an ex parte restraining order and set a hearing to decide whether further relief was warranted.
- On September 30, 2008, Rios appeared, but Fergusan had not yet been served; the court received limited testimony and continued the ex parte order for three weeks to permit service.
- By October 21, 2008, Rios filed proof that Fergusan had been personally served in North Carolina by an authorized process server; Fergusan did not appear at the hearing.
- Although the court found the YouTube video conveyed threats of serious physical harm, it initially proceeded cautiously because the respondent was a nonresident and the alleged conduct occurred outside Connecticut.
- The court then squarely addressed whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Fergusan based on the targeted Internet threat and, if so, whether the statutory standard for relief from abuse was met.

## Issues

1. Whether a Connecticut court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a North Carolina resident to enter a restraining order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15 based on a YouTube video posted from outside Connecticut that threatens a Connecticut resident.
2. Whether the targeted online threat constitutes conduct that satisfies Connecticut’s long-arm statute for nonresident individuals, including the provision for committing a tortious act “within the state.”
3. Whether exercising jurisdiction over the nonresident respondent is consistent with due process, including minimum contacts and fairness.
4. Whether the evidence showed a “continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15(a), warranting a post-hearing restraining order.

## Decision

- The court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Fergusan for purposes of entering a restraining order under § 46b-15.
- The court concluded that Fergusan’s YouTube posting was not merely Internet content accessible in Connecticut; it was a targeted threat directed at a known Connecticut resident, intended to cause fear in Connecticut.
- The court determined that treating the targeted threat as a tortious act for long-arm purposes was consistent with Connecticut’s jurisdictional statute and with case law distinguishing targeted Internet communications from passive online postings.
- The court held that due process was satisfied because Fergusan purposefully directed the threatening communication at Connecticut, making it reasonably foreseeable he could be required to answer in a Connecticut court.
- The court found that exercising jurisdiction was fair in light of Connecticut’s strong interest in protecting residents from threatened domestic violence and the limited weight of any burden created by litigating in Connecticut when the respondent chose to direct threats into the state.
- The court found that Rios met the statutory requirement of a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury based on the threatening video and the surrounding history reflected in the record.
- The court continued the ex parte order and entered a restraining order for six months, subject to extension as permitted by law, after finding proper personal service and providing the scheduled hearing opportunity.

## Legal Principles

- A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who intentionally directs a threatening communication at a forum resident, when the communication is designed to cause harm or fear in the forum state.
- For Internet-related conduct, jurisdiction commonly turns on whether the online content specifically targets a forum resident (and the forum itself), rather than being a generalized publication merely viewable in the forum.
- Due process permits jurisdiction where the defendant’s intentional, forum-directed conduct creates minimum contacts and where exercising jurisdiction is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
- Proceedings under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15 are protective in nature; the statute authorizes relief when the applicant proves a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury.
- When a respondent is properly served but does not appear, the court may decide the application based on the evidence presented, while still ensuring notice and an opportunity to be heard were provided.

## Conclusion

In *Stacy Elena Rios v. Christopher Fergusan*, the Connecticut Superior Court held it had personal jurisdiction to issue a post-hearing restraining order against a nonresident who posted a YouTube rap video threatening to shoot and kill a Connecticut resident, reasoning that the communication was intentionally directed into Connecticut and satisfied both the long-arm statute and due process; the court therefore continued the relief from abuse order for six months based on a proven, ongoing threat of physical harm.


Stacy Elena Rios v. Christopher Fergusan, 978 A.2d 592 (2008)