Unbeatablesalecom Inc V Fascinations Inc

Key Facts

Issues

• The second issue is whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Fascinations, Inc. based on its complaint to Amazon about UBS's product listings. The plaintiff claimed the complaint (sent from Washington to Amazon's Washington office) and 72 New Jersey sales (the last in 2013) created sufficient minimum contacts. The court found the complaint did not target New Jersey, and the sales were too attenuated from the 2025 dispute to satisfy either the traditional 'minimum contacts' test or the Calder effects test for intentional torts. The court emphasized the lack of forum-directed purpose and the outdated nature of the sales.
• The first issue is whether the court can exercise general jurisdiction over Fascinations, Inc., a Washington corporation with no employees, agents, or bank accounts in New Jersey. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's website availability in New Jersey and past sales (alleged to be over twelve years old) establish sufficient contacts. The court concluded that website sales alone, without the corporation being 'at home' in New Jersey (its place of incorporation or principal business), do not meet the 'continuous and systematic' contacts required for general jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman.

Holdings

• The court denies UBS's Motion to Depose Defendant's CEO, rejecting the argument for jurisdictional discovery based on the Mark IV case.
• The court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, concluding that there is no general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant in New Jersey.

Remedies

• The Court denied UBS's Motion to Depose, rejecting the request for jurisdictional discovery and deposition of Defendant's CEO.
• The Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, resulting in the dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the legal standards for personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), distinguishing between general and specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction requires a defendant to be 'at home' in the forum state, typically where the corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Specific jurisdiction requires the plaintiff's claims to arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts, with the traditional test focusing on minimum contacts and the Calder effects test requiring intentional targeting of the forum.
• The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction through sworn affidavits or competent evidence, not mere pleadings. The burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate unreasonableness if the plaintiff meets this threshold.

Precedent Name

• O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd.
• IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG
• Calder v. Jones
• Walden v. Fiore
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
• Christie v. Nat'l Inst. for Newman Stud.
• Hasson v. FullStory, Inc.
• Mark IV Transportation & Logistics, Inc. v. United States Global Logistics, LLC
• Te1ebands Corp. v. Altair Instruments, Inc.
• Hepp v. Facebook
• Marten v. Godwin
• Atcom Support LP v. Maria
• UHS of Del., Inc. v. United Health Servs., Inc.

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The connection between these purported twelve-year-old sales is far too attenuated from the complaint Defendant made to Amazon in 2025... to meet the threshold of 'a strong relationship among the [D]efendant, the forum, and the litigation.'
• For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
• The fact that Defendant sells items through its website in New Jersey is not enough to subject Defendant to general jurisdiction in the state.