1. JURISDICTION BASED ON LOCATION OF
A WEB SERVER
Jewish Defense Organisation , Inc. v.
Superior Court, 85 Cal Rptr 2d 611
(Cal.Ct.App.1999)

2. FACTS:-
 In 1997 plaintiff Steven Rambam filed an unverified
complaint against JDO & LEVY for defamation & related
causes of action.
 Rambam alleged that JDO & LEVY both have posted a
‘’world wide web page’’ containing defamatory
statements about Rambam saying that he is a
government informant, a snitch & so on.
 JDO & LEVY filed a motion to quash service of
summons or in the alternative a motion to stay or
dismiss the action as brought in an inconvenient forum.

3.  The JDO maintains a world wide website for the
dissemination of information to anyone in the
world where the internet is available, the website
is ‘’Passive’’, in that the JDO does not seek to
attract readers & does not capture or review any
information from those who may ‘Hit’ its website,
it merely provides ‘’information for those
people who seek access to it’’

4.  Some defamatory information about Rambam
similar to that on the JDO websites allegdly
appeared on several ‘mirror’ web pages
served by providers xoom inc. located in
California.
 Acc. to Rambam, JDO & LEVY were associated
with this ‘mirror’ web sites served by
California service providers.

5.  However revealed that the mirror web sites in
California were maintained by Alan
Weberman, whom Levy asserts is not an
employee, officer or agent of JDO & is not
authorized to speak on behalf of JDO.
 Insufficient evidence to support General
Jurisdiction.
 Insufficient evidence to support specific
jurisdiction.

6. ISSUES:-
 Whether California can properly assert
jurisdiction over non-resident defendant
based on their contracts with several ISPs with
offices in California to operate world wide web
sites from NEW YORK?
 Whether the principle of Purposefull
Availment will apply here?

7. Plaintiff’s contentions:-
 Defamatory statements against Rambam by
JDO & LEVY.
 JDO & LEVY have contracted with various ISPs
situated in California.
 JDO & LEVY served ‘’mirror’’ web sites.

8. Defendant’s contentions:-
 They denied their motion to quash service of
summons for lack of jurisdiction over them.
 In the alternative to stay or dismiss the action
on the ground of forum non convenience.

9. JUDGEMENT:-
• It was held by the court that the defendants
conduct of contracting by computer with
Internet service provider which may be
California corporation or which may maintain
offices or data-base in California is insufficient
to constitute Purposefull Availment.