Anurag Rakshit

Prof. Stephen Harder

Sunday, 6 September 2015

Attaway v. Omega Brief

Parties involved

- Richard Attaway and Marlene Attaway the Defendants being sued by the Plaintiff
for rescinding payment on an eBay bid.

- Llexcyiss Omega and D. Dale York the Plaintiff in this case who were selling the
Porsche on eBay.

Facts of the Case

- The case is filed at the Courts of Appeals of Indiana in 2009.

- Omega and York jointly list a Porsche for sale on eBay in 2006.
- Attaway, an Idaho resident, won the bid for a sum of USD 5000 via eBay owned
escrow service namely, Paypal. After winning the bid, as agreed upon earlier, Attaway
arranged for inter-state transportation of the vehicle by delegating CarHop USA to
take the delivery on their behalf.

- Upon delivery, the car was described as significantly not-as-described and Attaway
managed to cancel their MasterCard payment.

- Omega subsequently proceeded to sue Attaway in Indiana small claims court, where
Attaway filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the State of Indiana has no
personal jurisdiction over them. The motion is denied and Attaway filed for an appeal
at the Courts of Appeals of Indiana.

The Courts decision

- Affirmed and remanded. The court said that Attaway purposefully availed themselves
to the jurisdiction of Indiana by having minimum contact with the forum state and thus
establishing specific jurisdiction.

Views of the Court

- The Court states that the burden on Attaways is no more than it would be on Omega
and York if they were forced to bring this case to Idaho. Therefore the attachment of
personal jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.

- Not only did the Attaways knowingly bid on a car in the state of Indiana, they also
hired a moving company to take delivery of the car for them. Therefore, there are

Sunday, 6 September 2015

- more than just one transactions that would establish basis for the Attaways to face a
suit in the State of Indiana.

- The Court also cites similar cases by conducting research but however, also admits to
the uniqueness of the instant case. Other cases cited are namely, Devukaj v. Maloney,
447 F.Supp.2d 813 (2006), Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (2009), Zippo Dot
Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (1997)