When the car was delivered, Attaway felt it was “significantly not as described” in the eBay listing and filed a claim asking for a refund.
Attaway filed an answer and motioned to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction before the Clay County, Indiana small claims court.
International Shoe v. Washington the Supreme Court established that a nonresident defendant must have “certain minimum contacts with the forum state that does not offend tradition notions of fair play and substantial justice.
[3] Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state and that he should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.
The court dismissed the motion for lack of personal jurisdiction reasoning that the seller did not specifically direct his sale to California residents.
The opinion also cites Machulsky v. Hall,[8] a case where an Oregon buyer purchased a set of coins from a New Jersey seller on eBay.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held, that although the present case does revolve around a single eBay purchase, there is personal jurisdiction and that it comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.