Blimka V. My Web Wholesalers, Llc.

467 Words2 Pages
Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, LLC. 143 Idaho 723, 152 P. 3d 594 (2007) Facts: Blimka is an Idaho resident, and plaintiff that discovered My Web website to purchase a bulk pairs of jeans from their website. Blimka spoke to DePalma, the website manager who agreed to sell, 26,500 pairs of jeans for a sum of $ 20,935. Upon, wiring the money to My Web Blimka only receiving 16,000 pairs of jeans arrived. With Blimka disappointment with the company he tried to correct the concerns he had. With little luck, Blimka sued DePalma and My web website in Idaho for the disarray of fraud. However, the defendants; DePalma and My Web were served In Maine and did not reply to the complaint. Unfortunately the district court issued a judgment against the defendants. The defendants were bitter, for learning the outcome, so the defendants then filed a motion for relief from the judgment stating that it did not have personal jurisdiction seeing that the plaintiff filed in Idaho and they were served in Maine. Procedural History: The plaintiff Blimka filed an action for fraudulent mis-representation of a product. In which the plaintiff Blimka seeks justice on the grounds that personal jurisdiction by the plaintiff in one state over a non-resident in another state who falsely advertise their business goods. However, the defendants My Web and DePalma are challenging that their acquaintances with Blimka were lacking under the substantive or procedural law to permit personal jurisdiction in this case. The courts had to determine if the statements were sufficient to exercise long arm statute seeing that the fourteenth amendments allows personal jurisdiction. In the end the defendants appeal. Issue: Why did the defendants not appeal due to diversity of jurisdiction to have their case heard in a federal court? Decision: The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the decision of the trail
Open Document