Kristen Stevens, a Florida actress, sued Robert Peterson, a Washington actor, for defamation. Peterson and Stevens had a business and romantic relationship and were members of the social media site HEADSHOT, Inc. After photos emerged of Stevens with another man, Peterson posted defamatory statements about Stevens on HEADSHOT. These statements were seen by others and damaged Stevens' reputation in Florida. Stevens is opposing Peterson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the court has jurisdiction due to their ongoing relationship and Peterson intentionally defaming her, knowing she lived in Florida.

1. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
KRISTEN JAYMES STEVENS,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 8:13-cv-137-J-25JTK
vs.
ROBERT DOUGLAS THOMAS PETERSON,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Peterson claims that the Federal District Court in the Middle District of
Florida cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff Stevens. Plaintiff, in opposition of
Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserts
that Defendant has established a continuous business relationship and has been the victim of
intentional defamation statements.
Plaintiff and Defendant established a business and romantic relationship. With the social
networking internet site HEADSHOT, Inc., Defendant intentionally defamed Plaintiff. These
statements were viewable by parties outside of this lawsuit. Plaintiff has suffered injury from

2. 2
Defendant’s intentional defamatory and libelous statements. Plaintiff now requests this Court to
deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for the Court to proceed
to a jury trial on all issues. Plaintiff claims that personal jurisdiction exists because of the
continuous business relationship established between Plaintiff and Defendant. The defamatory
contact from the Defendant relates to Plaintiff’s cause of action, which caused the Plaintiff to
suffer injury. The Florida long-arm statute is satisfied as well. Therefore, personal jurisdiction
exists through Due Process from the Florida Statute as well as the United States Constitution.
The Court should deny defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant, a film actor and citizen of Washington, met Plaintiff, a film actress and
citizen of Florida, while on the set of Twilight. They established a romantic relationship and
became involved in the social networking internet site HEADSHOT, Inc. This site allows users
to create a personal page that is viewable to other members based on privacy settings that the
users established.
Photos emerged from a newspaper that depicted Plaintiff embracing another man, Rupert
Saunders. Defendant then “defriended” Plaintiff on HEADSHOT, Inc., and the Defendant posted
libelous and defamatory statements directed towards Plaintiff. These statements contain
exaggerations of the events that took place between Plaintiff and Saunders. Defendant also made
false statements that intentionally hurt the Plaintiff. Parties outside of this case were able to see
these statements and they were able to contact Plaintiff to inform her of these statements. The
Florida Tribune leaked these statements out to the public and Plaintiff received a bad reputation
in the entertainment industry. Plaintiff attempted to commit suicide and was rushed to the
emergency room. Her stomach was pumped from ingesting muscle relaxants and whiskey.
Shortly afterwards, Defendant appeared on “The Daily show” and referred to Plaintiff as, “She
who shall not be named”, along with other defamatory statements. Plaintiff has suffered

3. 3
emotional distress and harm, along with losing acting roles because of her harmed reputation
from Defendant.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The courts use a three-prong test when determining whether there is personal jurisdiction
over a non-resident defendant: (1) the defendant must have sufficient “minimum contacts” with
the forum state, (2) the claim asserted against the defendant must arise out of those contacts, and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475
(1985) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)
In regards to cases dealing with jurisdiction over an internet website, some courts use a
three-prong test for determining jurisdiction known as the “sliding scale” approach. The first
type of website is the active website, where a defendant clearly does business over the internet.
Jurisdiction exists with active websites. The second type of website is interactive, where a user is
able to exchange information with a host computer. Jurisdiction is determined on this type of site
by looking at the interactivity and the type of use in the exchange of information. The last type of
website is passive, in which only information is posted. Passive websites do not have personal
jurisdiction. See Zippo Mfr. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, (W.D. Pa. 1997)
When a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction to an out-of-state defendant, the “fair
warning” requirement is satisfied if the defendant has “purposely directed” his or her activities at
residents of the forum. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). Fair play
and substantial justice factors include: burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest in
adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the
interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,
and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.”
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 103 (1987).
LEGAL ARGUMENTS

4. 4
The Court should deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiff is able to establish that the Defendant maintained a continuous
relationship with the Plaintiff and intentionally defamed her. The defamatory statements indicate
that the Defendant was referring to the Plaintiff, satisfying the traditional intentional torts
minimum contacts standard. Applying the Sliding Scale approach, Plaintiff is able to prove that
HEADSHOT, Inc. functions as an interactive site, thus; allowing possible personal jurisdiction.
Finally, Plaintiff is able to prove that bringing Defendant into court would not violate the
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
I. LONG-ARM STATUTE AND DUE PROCESS
The Due Process Clause to the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits
the state from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The Florida Long-Arm Statute here comports with the Due Process
requirement.
A. Plaintiff has established minimum contacts with Defendant
Due Process requires that a non-resident defendant have “certain minimum contacts with
it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” International Shoe Co, 326 U.S. 310. Courts use the “effects test” to
determine if there are minimum contacts with the Defendant. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783
(1984). The “Effects Test” has three parts:
1) Defendant’s actions intentionally reached another party
2) Defendant’s actions were aimed at the forum state
3) The Defendant caused harm that he or she would anticipate in the forum state
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204.

5. 5
The court looks at a case and applies these prongs to the facts. In Calder, the court found
that California retained personal jurisdiction. The defendant in that case said libelous statements
towards the plaintiff. The court determined that the plaintiff would suffer in California because
the statements were written in the newspaper, the National Enquirer. The court also determined
that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was a resident of California. The court applied the test
and determined that personal jurisdiction existed.
Defendant specifically targeted Plaintiff when he posted the defamatory statements.
Defendant was aware that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. Even though the defamatory statements
are visible to anyone in any state, personal jurisdiction is appropriate in Florida. Since Defendant
knew that Plaintiff is a resident of Florida and that she would suffer harm, personal jurisdiction
would be constitutional in the forum state.
Plaintiff has established minimum contacts using the “Effects Test.” Plaintiff is able to
show that the Defendant intentionally defamed Plaintiff in Plaintiffs state of residency. The
Defendant knew that Plaintiff was a resident of that Florida and that Plaintiff would suffer harm
in Florida.
II. SLIDING SCALE ANALYSIS OF MINIMUM CONTACTS
The sliding scale analysis allows jurisdiction to websites based on the quality and
nature of the sites. Zippo Mfr. Co., 952 F. Supp. 1119. There are three types of websites: (1)
passive, which allows no personal jurisdiction; (2) interactive, which the court has discretion on
applying jurisdiction; (3) active, which has personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is able to establish that the court is able to exercise personal jurisdiction. Despite
the fact that the Defendant may argue that there is no jurisdiction since HEADSHOT, Inc. could
be viewed as a passive website, Defendant has still committed an intentional tortious act by
posting defamatory statements on the website. Florida’s long-arm statute allows the court to
exercise jurisdiction over a cause of action arising from a tortious act committed within Florida.
Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1) (b). Posting defamatory information on a website about a Florida

6. 6
resident may subject the defendant to be hauled into the forum state of Florida. See Becker v.
Hooshmand, 841 So. 2d 561. In Becker, the court retained jurisdiction when a Pennsylvanian
resident posted defamatory material about a Floridian doctor on an internet chat room.
In this case, Defendant posted defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which constitutes
the tort of defamation. The website contains the posted defamatory statements that can be
viewed from any state and country and country. Since the Defendant was aware that Plaintiff
resided in Florida, Defendant knew that the Plaintiff could commence suit in the forum state of
Florida.
III. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
In order for a court to haul in a defendant, the defendant must have certain
minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co, 326 U.S. 310; Burnham v. Superior Court
of Cal., 495 U.S. 604. Once minimum contacts are established, the court looks at several factors
to see if it is reasonable to haul the defendant into court. These factors include: burden on the
defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in
obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the
most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in
furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” Asahi Metal Industry Co, 480 U.S. at 103
(1987).
When analyzing the case at hand, the court should find that there is no undue burden on
the defendant. Defendant may try to argue that since he is a citizen of Washington, he is
burdened by traveling to Florida to go to court. However, Defendant purposely availed himself to
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a past business and romantic relationship. The
Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff may file suit based on the defamatory charges and the
Defendant was aware that Plaintiff lives in Florida.

7. 7
The forum has an interest in adjudicating the suit. Plaintiff is a resident in Florida. The
defamatory statements have damaged the reputation of the Plaintiff. The Defendant may try to
say that her reputation would be hurt in all states and that the damage was not specific enough to
Florida in order for jurisdiction to apply. However, Plaintiff’s damaged reputation affected the
entertainment industry, as well as Plaintiff’s family and friends. Plaintiff’s reputation in Florida
is important because this is her place of residence. By allowing Florida to adjudicate, the
Plaintiff may take action and receive closure from the Defendant’s defamatory statements.
The Plaintiff has an interest in seeking convenient and effective relief. The defamatory
statements damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation and she deserves compensation. The Plaintiff has
lost work due to the false statements made by the Defendant. Recovering from this type of
damaged reputation could take a long time since rumors were spread nationally. Plaintiff
deserves to have a jury trial and compensation for her damages.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff requests the court to deny Defendant’s motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to have a jury trial.
Respectfully Submitted,
This 16th day of August, 2013.
TREULIEB AND DAVIS, P.A.
By: Ryan S. Treulieb
LISA N. Beckett
Fla. Bar No. 111111
One Independent Drive, Suite 2700,
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone No.: (904) 264-8935

8. 8
Facsimile No.: (904) 264-8999
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served upon Lisa
Beckett, One Independent Drive, Suite 2700, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, via Facsimile and U.S. Mail, this
19th day of August, 2012.
____________-Ryan S. Treulieb__________
ATTORNEY