Where? Up the @$$, thats where.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

But plaintiffs in the 5th and 8th Circuits, by contrast, can’t establish jurisdiction solely by showing that an online retailer delivered a single product within the court’s geographical boundaries.

The companies’ lawyers at Bochner have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in to resolve the circuit split and provide clear guidance on where internet retailers can be sued.

The appeals court instead instructed trial judges to focus on whether the sale and delivery of physical products within the plaintiff’s chosen jurisdiction are a routine part of the online retailer’s business.

The 5th Circuit expressed the same view, albeit in dicta, in a 2021 decision describing the shipment of a lone product as “the type of isolated act that does not create minimum contact.”

Herbal Brands counsel Daniel Wucherer of Vorys Sater, who argued for the company at the 9th Circuit, did not respond to my email query on the Supreme Court petition.

But the 9th Circuit, in applying the Calder test, said Herbal Brands demonstrated that the Amazon storefronts had “expressly aimed” conduct at Arizona by routinely selling and delivering products in the state.

The original article contains 1,087 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!