Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Improvita Health Products

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding “expressly aiming” element satisfied based on allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations in emails directed to plaintiff in forum
• “The phone calls, emails and mailings sent by the Defendants and the misrepresentations therein constitute intentional acts for the purposes of the effects test.
• intentional act satisfied based on allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations in emails directed to plaintiff in forum
• “The Court need not consider Defendants’ position . . . since it was first raised in 27 their reply brief. Thus, even if the argument has merit, this Court cannot appropriately consider it, since Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to respond.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).