6 When personal jurisdiction is based upon the long-arm statute, “only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against.
#YELP CARPET CLEANING CODE#
In particular, the General Assembly has provided for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, including foreign corporations, through enactment of the long-arm statute, Code § 8.01–328.1, and has provided a range of options for the manner in which nonresident defendants may be served when “exercise of personal jurisdiction is authorized by this chapter.” Code § 8.01–329(A). In determining whether the circuit court was empowered to enforce the subpoena duces tecum against Yelp, we first observe that while the General Assembly has expressly provided for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants under certain circumstances, it has not expressly provided for the exercise of subpoena power over nonresident non-parties.
#YELP CARPET CLEANING TRIAL#
Yelp contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that “a Virginia trial court may assert subpoena jurisdiction over a non-party California company, to produce documents located in California, just because the company has a registered agent in Virginia.” 5 With specific regard to the exercise of subpoena power over Yelp, the circuit court and Court of Appeals ruled that service of the subpoena on Yelp's registered agent in Virginia provided the circuit court with jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena duces tecum. 3 The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. The circuit court issued an order enforcing the subpoena duces tecum and subsequently holding Yelp in civil contempt when it refused to comply. 2Īfter Yelp filed written objections to the subpoena duces tecum, Hadeed moved to overrule the objections and enforce the subpoena duces tecum. That section sets forth the procedure that must be followed for any subpoena seeking information identifying a tortfeasor “n civil proceedings where it is alleged that an anonymous individual has engaged in Internet communications that are tortious.” Code § 8.01–407.1(A). Hadeed then issued a second subpoena duces tecum that complied with the procedural requirements of Code § 8.01–407.1. Yelp objected to an initial subpoena duces tecum for, among other reasons, Hadeed's failure to comply with the requirements of Code § 8.01–407.1. Hadeed served the subpoena duces tecum on Yelp's registered agent in Virginia. 1 Yelp has no offices in Virginia.Īlthough Yelp's headquarters are located in California, Yelp is registered to do business in Virginia and has designated a registered agent for service of process in Virginia.
#YELP CARPET CLEANING REGISTRATION#
The information provided by users of Yelp upon their registration and the Internet Protocol addresses used by registered users who post reviews are stored by Yelp on administrative databases accessible only by specified Yelp employees located in San Francisco. Hadeed issued a subpoena duces tecum to Yelp, seeking documents revealing the identity and other information about the authors of the reviews. Hadeed, a Virginia corporation doing business in Virginia, filed a defamation action in the circuit court against three John Doe defendants alleging they falsely represented themselves as Hadeed customers and posted negative reviews regarding Hadeed's carpet cleaning services on Yelp.
Since Yelp does not require users to provide their actual names, users may post reviews under pseudonyms. Yelp operates a social networking website that allows registered users to rate and describe their experiences with local businesses.
Because we conclude the circuit court was not empowered to enforce the subpoena duces tecum against Yelp, we will vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the contempt order of the circuit court. The subpoena duces tecum directed Yelp, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, to produce documents located in California in connection with a defamation action filed by Hadeed against John Doe defendants. (“Yelp”), appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the order of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria holding Yelp in civil contempt for failing to comply with a non-party subpoena duces tecum served upon it by Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. Present: LEMONS, C.J., GOODWYN, MILLETTE, MIMS, McCLANAHAN, and Powell, JJ., and KOONTZ, S.J.
0 kommentar(er)
