Unspam Technologies, Inc. v. Andrey Chernuk

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that receipt of allegedly fraudulent payments “amounts to no more than a bare allegation or logical possibility” of a conspiracy and does “not satisfy the requirements for establishing a conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction”
• suggesting that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery based on conclusory allegations of personal jurisdiction
• noting that, to satisfy the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, the party must allege “with particularity the conspiracy and overt acts within the forum taken in furtherance of the conspiracy”
• finding no conspiratorial liability against foreign banks where plaintiff had alleged banks kept spammers in business by processing transactions, but did not allege a common plan amongst foreign banks
• discussing claims that would enable jurisdiction over coconspirators not present in the forum state
• articulating the specific jurisdiction considerations when the defendant’s conduct takes place over the internet

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).