Schron v. Jean's Fine Wine & Spirits, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that no purposeful availment existed where company maintained informational website that allowed Massachusetts residents to reach out to company, though none ever did
• explaining that plaintiff “may rely on jurisdictional facts documented in supplemental filings (such as affidavits) contained in the record, and/or may point to undisputed facts.”
• stating that it would “serve no useful purpose” to analyze statutory authorization under Massachusetts’ long-arm statute when plaintiff has not satisfied the federal constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction
• stating that it would “serve no useful purpose” to analyze statutory authorization under Massachusetts’ long-arm statute when plaintiff has not satisfied the federal constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction
• noting that without such evidence, the plaintiff “left the district court to guess whether [the defendant] has any Massachusetts customers, receives any revenue from Massachusetts, or has any other business connection with Massachusetts”
• affirming denial of jurisdictional discovery because plaintiff failed “to explain why jurisdictional discovery was appropriate and what relevant information it hoped to glean through such discovery”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).