Online Furniture Sale, Removal, and Personal Jurisdiction
Marla, an Oregon resident, orders a custom walnut dining table for $18,000 from Cascade Woodworks LLC, a Washington limited liability company with its only office in Seattle. She chooses finishes through the company's website, exchanges a dozen emails with the owner about dimensions, pays a $9,000 deposit by credit card, and accepts delivery in Portland. The table arrives with a cracked apron. The sales contract says Washington law governs but has no forum-selection clause. Cascade has no Oregon office, employees, or agents. In the past two years it has sold to three other Oregon customers through its website, totaling about $40,000. Marla sues Cascade in Multnomah County Circuit Court for breach of contract and negligence. Cascade moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, before the state court rules, removes to federal court based on diversity. Marla moves to remand, arguing that Cascade waived its personal-jurisdiction objection by removing.
1. Does Oregon have personal jurisdiction over Cascade? Analyze purposeful availment, relatedness, and reasonableness.
Read the worked answer
Cascade is not subject to general jurisdiction in Oregon. It has no Oregon office, employees, agents, or continuous and systematic contacts approaching the level of a home-state presence. The analysis is therefore specific jurisdiction.
Purposeful availment: Cascade deliberately reached into Oregon. It maintained an interactive website, accepted a custom order from an Oregon buyer, exchanged detailed design emails, took an Oregon credit-card payment, and delivered the finished table to Portland. Those are purposeful contacts, not random or fortuitous ones. The additional three Oregon sales totaling $40,000 over two years reinforce that Cascade was serving the Oregon market rather than dealing with a single unwitting customer.
Relatedness: Marla's claim arises directly out of the Oregon transaction. The cracked table was designed, paid for, and delivered as part of Cascade's Oregon contacts. The negligence claim also concerns the same table and delivery.
Reasonableness: The burden on Cascade is modest because it already ships to Oregon and has dealt with Oregon customers. Oregon has a strong interest in protecting its residents from defective goods sold into the state. Marla's interest in litigating at home is significant, and the evidence about the table is in Oregon. The contract's Washington choice-of-law clause does not by itself defeat jurisdiction. On these facts, Oregon courts would likely find personal jurisdiction consistent with due process and Oregon's long-arm rule.
2. If the federal court has diversity jurisdiction, should it remand because Cascade removed? Does removal waive the personal-jurisdiction defense?
Read the worked answer
Remand is not required merely because Cascade removed. Removal is proper if the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Assuming complete diversity exists-Marla is an Oregon citizen and all Cascade LLC members are Washington citizens-and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, diversity jurisdiction exists. The $18,000 contract price does not control because Marla may seek consequential or other damages, but if the amount in controversy were only $18,000, removal would fail for lack of the jurisdictional amount.
Removal does not waive a personal-jurisdiction defense. A defendant may remove and then move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), provided the defense is raised in the first Rule 12 response or in the answer. Removal waives certain defects in removal procedure, not lack of personal jurisdiction. The fact that Cascade first moved to dismiss in state court does not automatically waive the defense either; Cascade must simply preserve and reassert it in federal court.
Therefore, the federal court should deny Marla's motion to remand if diversity and the amount in controversy are satisfied. Cascade's personal-jurisdiction objection survives removal, but the federal court will decide that objection independently under the same due-process analysis.