1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SAI KOPPAKA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. Case No. 14-cv-6716 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION I.Introduction Koppaka alleges he has been pranked.That is, he alleges that Doe signed him up for junk mail and a few website accounts.Complaint, 12-24 (ECF Doc. 1).In response, Koppaka acted in a manner that can only be described as overkill, literally making a federal case out of it.Rather thansimplyclicktheunsubscribebutton,ordeleteaccounts,1 Koppakalawyeredupandthrew thousands of dollars at the prank conveniently (and arguably) reaching the threshold needed to sustainaprivateactionundertheComputerFraudandAbuseAct.Inmakinghisfederalcase, Koppaka attempts to drag an individual from Tennessee to this Court in Chicago, a city in a state he visited only once, years ago.Asathresholdmatter,thisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictionoveraTennessean,whohas notbeentoIllinoisforseveralyears,evenassuming,arguendo,thattheallegationsinthe 1 Indeed, a claim of irreparable injury is patently outrageous.The supposed injury takes the click of an unsubscribe buttonordeletionofanaccounttorepair.ThesamefalseclaimofirreparableinjuryismadeintheMotionforEarly Discovery, p. 4 (ECF Doc. 4). 2 Complaintweretrue.Assuch,thisCourtdoesnotevenneedtodeterminewhetherornot Koppakas Complaint is sufficiently plead.2 II.Procedural History On August 29, 2014, Koppaka filed his Complaint against John Doe.Complaint (ECF Doc. 1).In his Complaint, Koppaka could only guess incorrectly that Doe might have been a citizen orresidentofthisDistrict.Id.,6.Otherwise,toestablishvenue,Koppakaonlyclaimedthat conductwasdirectedintothisDistrict.Id.,7.Koppakaerred.Koppakafiledtwomotions seeking early discovery.(ECF Docs. 4 & 8).These were granted, allowing Koppaka to subpoena AT&T,Doesinternetserviceprovider.Doebecameawareofthislitigationwhenhereceived notice from AT&T that Koppaka was seeking his identity. III.Facts DoedoesnotresideinthisDistrict.Decl.ofJohnDoe,4.Hedoesnotdobusiness here.Id.,5.HehasnotbeentoIllinoisforseveralyears.Id.6.Thesingletimehewasin Illinois,ithadnothingtodowiththematterathand.Id.AT&TisawarethattheIPaddressthat DoepaysthebillforwasassignedtoarouterinTennessee.Exh.A.Importantly,Doedidnot undertake the actions described in the Complaint.Id., 7.He does not know who did.Id., 8.Being accused of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a criminal statute allowing for decades long sentences in prison, it is important to Doe to have this matter dismissed prior to his being named in these proceedings.Id., 9.3 2 ThefocusofthisMotionisjurisdiction.However,DoedoesnotwaivetherighttoassertthattheComplaintis insufficiently plead or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted at a later time. 3 Seealso,ComputerFraud&AbuseActReform,ElectronicFrontierFoundation,availableat, https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa (discussing what the EFF believes to be a disproportionally harsh penalty scheme) 3 IV.Law Rule12(b)(2)permitsdismissalofanactionduetolackofpersonaljurisdiction.Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); see also, Flava Works, Inc. v. Doe, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7361, 6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2014).Jurisdiction can be general or specific.Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir. 2014).Just over a month ago, this very Court, in FlavaWorks,Inc.,heldthatJohnDoedefendantswithoutout-of-stateIPAddressesdonothave sufficientcontinuousandsystematicscontactstogiverisetogeneralpersonaljurisdiction.2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS7361,8.Inordertoobtainspecificpersonaljurisdiction,factsshowingthata Defendantpurposefullydirectedactivitiesattheforumstatemustbealleged.Id.at9,citing, Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 2010).However, harm to the plaintiff in the forum is not enough to establish jurisdiction.Labtest Int'l, Inc. v. Ctr. Testing Int'l Corp., 766 F. Supp. 2d 854, 861 (N.D. Ill. 2011). V.Argument As noted above, personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific.Advanced Tactical OrdinanceSys.751F.3dat800.NothingintheComplaintsuggestsgeneraljurisdictionnor could it reasonably do so.Doe is not a resident of this District or State.Additionally, there are not sufficientfactsthatexisttoprovidespecificpersonaljurisdictioninthismatter.Asinglevisitto Illinois,severalyearsago,forreasonsunrelatedtothisisnotsufficient.See,AdvancedTactical Ordinance Sys., LLC., 751 F.3d at 801 (finding that, for intentional torts, contacts must be related tothetortiousconduct).TofindotherwisewouldnecessarilymeanthatthisCourthasspecific personal jurisdiction over the 50.2 million yearly visitors to Chicago.4 4 Chicago Tourism Hits Record 50M Visitors, 5 NBC Chicago (Feb. 6, 2015), available at, http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Tourism-Hits-Record-50M-Visitors-290932611.html4 To begin, no facts are plead that could lead this court to divine that Doe has purposefully directedanyactivitiestothisStateorDistrict.Simplyrecitingastraight-from-case-lawstandard, thatactionsweredirectedtowardthisdistrict,doesnotsatisfytheneedtopleadfactsthat competently support that conclusion. Moreover, simply alleging that Koppaka was harmed in the Northern District is insufficient as a matter of law.Labtest Int'l, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 2d at 861; see also, Shrum v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.,2014U.S.Dist.LEXIS169113,16(C.D.Ill.Dec.8,2014)(AstheSupremeCourtand SeventhCircuithavemadeclear,then,regardlessofwhetherPlaintiffwasharmedinIllinois, Plaintiff cannot be the sole link between [the defendant] and Illinois). Furthermore,theSeventhCircuitindicatingitsunderstandingofelectronicmailhas stated that: Asapracticalmatter,emaildoesnotexistinanylocationatall;itbouncesfrom oneservertoanother,itstartswherevertheaccount-holderissittingwhenshe clicksthe"send"button,anditwindsupwherevertherecipienthappenstobeat thatinstant. Theconnectionbetweentheplacewhereanemailisopenedanda lawsuit is entirely fortuitous. Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys., LLC., 751 F.3d at 803.As such, allegations that emails were directedtothisDistrictbyvirtueofKoppakaexistinginthisdistrictwhenhereceived[] unsolicited email[s] is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish specific personal jurisdiction. Likewise, allegations of what took place on servers of third-parties that are not plead to be located in this District fail to support the conclusion that any activities took place in or were directed into this District.An individual using a website could be accessing a server down the street, or one inIceland.ThisCourthasrecognizedthatthelocationofaserverbeingaccessedisthe appropriateinquirywhendeterminingjurisdiction.JDAeHealthSys.v.ChapinRevenueCycle Mgmt.,LLC,2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS68174,16-17(N.D.Ill.June23,2011)(findingjurisdiction existed in the Northern District of Illinois when the defendant accessed a server in Naperville); see 5 also, Advanced Tactical Ordinance Systems, supra (understanding that servers exist in more than oneplace).KoppakahasfailedtopleadasinglefactsuggestingthatDoecreatedaccountson serversexistinginthisDistrict.Assuch,therearenofactspleadthatleadtospecificpersonal jurisdiction existing here. While it may be argued that it is premature to dismiss this case until Doe has been named in this action,5 this Court has sua sponte dismissed claims against Doe defendants when plaintiffs counselcouldhavereadilyascertainedthatpersonaljurisdictionwaslacking.6 CPProds.,Inc.v. Does1-300,2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS113013,2011WL737761,at*1(N.D.Ill.Feb.24,2011).A textbook example of that ability exists in the case at bar.Koppaka could have readily determined that Doe resides in Tennessee prior to seeking his identity from AT&T. InVPRInternationalev.Does1-1,017,counselforKoppakafiledanAmicusBriefforthe Electronic Frontier Foundation.11-cv-2068 (ECF Doc. 22-1) (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2011).He also filed the declaration of a Mr. Seth Schoen.In 4 8 of his Declaration, Mr. Schoen explains how to use many tools freely available to the public that help reveal where a person using a particular IP address is likely to be physically located.Id. at pp. 36-37.7 Moreover, in this case, Counsel for Koppaka has submitted a declaration relying upon his experiencelitigatingmatterswithanonymouspartiesandexpressingknowledgeaboutthe practicesofinternetserviceproviders.(ECFDoc.4-1).Koppakascounseliswell-versedin matters such as this anonymous internet activities, and he leveraged this fact in a declaration in order to obtain early discovery from this Court.As such, it is that evident counsel is well aware that 5 See,e.g., FirstTimeVideos,LLCv.Does1-500,276F.R.D.241,251(N.D.Ill.2011) ("Defendantscannotbe dismissed . . . from a lawsuit to which they are not yet parties.") 6 Additionally, the prejudice of being publicly accused of violation of a criminal statute makes it all the more important to have this resolved prior to Doe being named and served. 7 Counsel for Koppaka has filed substantially similar declarations, with the same explanations about free geo-location tools, in other cases before this Court.See, Openmind Solutions, Inc., v. Does 1-2925, 11-cv-0092 (ECF Doc. 11-3) (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2011). 6 he could use free, web-based, geoloation tools to readily ascertain that Does IP Address locates to Tennessee, not this District.Accordingly, it is just and proper to dismiss this case, despite Doe not having yet been served in this matter. VI.Conclusion This Court lacks jurisdiction over Doe.He is from Tennessee and none of the allegations in the Complaint provide this Court with jurisdiction over the matter.As such, the relief sought in the Motion should be granted Respectfully Submitted, JOHN DOE, by /s/ Jonathan LA Phillips Jonathan LA Phillips Shay Phillips, Ltd. 456 Fulton St. | Ste. 255 Peoria, IL | 61602 t | 309.494.6155 f | 309.494.6156 e| jphillips@skplawyers.com One of John Does attorneys Certificate of Service I certify that on February 27, 2015 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court via the Courts ECF filing system, thereby serving it upon all counsel of record. /s/ Jonathan LA Phillips