Long arm statutes permit a state court to bring legal action within its jurisdiction to reach nonresident persons and corporations who, by their actions, have had at least “minimum contacts” with that state such that it is deemed fair and just to subject them to the powers of a court in that state. In earlier times most contacts were likely to take a physical form. But today, as a recent case illustrates, in the age of computers and the Internet the only thing physical about the contact may be someone clicking a mouse or striking a keyboard from his or her home in another state or country.
Here’s a case that discusses long arm jurisdiction… A chemical company based in Connecticut decided to terminate an employee of a New Jersey subsidiary of the company. The employee lived and worked in New Jersey. According to the company, upon learning of her impending termination, this employee forwarded company email to her personal email which was confidential and proprietary to the company.
The employee had previously agreed in writing to safeguard such information and to use it only for company purposes. The company sued in a federal court for unauthorized access to, and misuse of, a computer system and for misappropriation of trade secrets, in violation of Connecticut statutes.
In defense, the terminated employee contended that she was beyond the reach of Connecticut’s long arm statute when her conduct occurred while she was domiciled and working in New Jersey, in accessing a computer server located in Connecticut, she misappropriated confidential information belonging to her employer. That act was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over her under Connecticut’s long arm statute.
The Connecticut statute specifically provided for personal jurisdiction over persons who use a “computer” or a computer network located within the state, and the court found that the company’s server, which the employee had used, was a “computer” for jurisdictional purposes.
For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, not only must the jurisdiction be authorized under the state’s long arm statute but must also satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Under well settled U.S. Supreme Court precedents, this means that a nonresident must have engaged in some act by which it availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, and the resulting exercise of personal jurisdiction must be “reasonable.” The facts of the chemical company’s case against the employee met these constitutional tests.
As for the reasonableness of bringing the nonresident defendant before a court in Connecticut, the court explained that although she would have to travel to Connecticut to defend the suit, both Connecticut and the employer company had sufficient interests in resolving the matter in Connecticut. Not only was the employer based in Connecticut, which was where the majority of the corporate witnesses were located, but also Connecticut itself had an interest in the proper interpretation of its laws.
To discuss your NJ employment matter, please contact Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. at (732) 863-9900 or email him at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com. Please ask us about our video conferencing or telephone consultations if you are unable to come to our office.
By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. of Hanlon Niemann & Wright, a Freehold Township, Monmouth County, NJ Employment Attorney