Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:249

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SAI KOPPAKA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-6716

JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF:
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
I.

Introduction
Koppaka alleges he has been pranked. That is, he alleges that Doe signed him up for junk

mail and a few website accounts. Complaint, 12-24 (ECF Doc. 1). In response, Koppaka acted
in a manner that can only be described as overkill, literally making a federal case out of it. Rather
than simply click the unsubscribe button, or delete accounts,1 Koppaka lawyered up and threw
thousands of dollars at the prank conveniently (and arguably) reaching the threshold needed to
sustain a private action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In making his federal case,
Koppaka attempts to drag an individual from Tennessee to this Court in Chicago, a city in a state
he visited only once, years ago.
As a threshold matter, this Court does not have jurisdiction over a Tennessean, who has
not been to Illinois for several years, even assuming, arguendo, that the allegations in the

Indeed, a claim of irreparable injury is patently outrageous. The supposed injury takes the click of an unsubscribe
button or deletion of an account to repair. The same false claim of irreparable injury is made in the Motion for Early
Discovery, p. 4 (ECF Doc. 4).
1

Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:250

Complaint were true. As such, this Court does not even need to determine whether or not
Koppakas Complaint is sufficiently plead.2
II. Procedural History
On August 29, 2014, Koppaka filed his Complaint against John Doe. Complaint (ECF Doc.
1). In his Complaint, Koppaka could only guess incorrectly that Doe might have been a citizen
or resident of this District. Id., 6. Otherwise, to establish venue, Koppaka only claimed that
conduct was directed into this District. Id., 7. Koppaka erred. Koppaka filed two motions
seeking early discovery. (ECF Docs. 4 & 8). These were granted, allowing Koppaka to subpoena
AT&T, Does internet service provider. Doe became aware of this litigation when he received
notice from AT&T that Koppaka was seeking his identity.
III. Facts
Doe does not reside in this District. Decl. of John Doe, 4. He does not do business
here. Id., 5. He has not been to Illinois for several years. Id. 6. The single time he was in
Illinois, it had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Id. AT&T is aware that the IP address that
Doe pays the bill for was assigned to a router in Tennessee. Exh. A. Importantly, Doe did not
undertake the actions described in the Complaint. Id., 7. He does not know who did. Id., 8.
Being accused of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a criminal statute allowing for decades long
sentences in prison, it is important to Doe to have this matter dismissed prior to his being named in
these proceedings. Id., 9.3

The focus of this Motion is jurisdiction. However, Doe does not waive the right to assert that the Complaint is
insufficiently plead or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted at a later time.
3 See also, Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Reform, Electronic Frontier Foundation, available at,
https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa (discussing what the EFF believes to be a disproportionally harsh penalty scheme)
2

Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:251

IV. Law
Rule 12(b)(2) permits dismissal of an action due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2); see also, Flava Works, Inc. v. Doe, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7361, 6 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
21, 2014). Jurisdiction can be general or specific. Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys., LLC v. Real
Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir. 2014). Just over a month ago, this very Court, in
Flava Works, Inc., held that John Doe defendants without out-of-state IP Addresses do not have
sufficient continuous and systematics contacts to give rise to general personal jurisdiction. 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7361, 8. In order to obtain specific personal jurisdiction, facts showing that a
Defendant purposefully directed activities at the forum state must be alleged. Id. at 9, citing,
Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 2010). However, harm to the plaintiff in the forum
is not enough to establish jurisdiction. Labtest Int'l, Inc. v. Ctr. Testing Int'l Corp., 766 F. Supp. 2d
854, 861 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
V. Argument
As noted above, personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific. Advanced Tactical
Ordinance Sys. 751 F.3d at 800. Nothing in the Complaint suggests general jurisdiction nor
could it reasonably do so. Doe is not a resident of this District or State. Additionally, there are not
sufficient facts that exist to provide specific personal jurisdiction in this matter. A single visit to
Illinois, several years ago, for reasons unrelated to this is not sufficient. See, Advanced Tactical
Ordinance Sys., LLC., 751 F.3d at 801 (finding that, for intentional torts, contacts must be related
to the tortious conduct). To find otherwise would necessarily mean that this Court has specific
personal jurisdiction over the 50.2 million yearly visitors to Chicago.4

Chicago Tourism Hits Record 50M Visitors, 5 NBC Chicago (Feb. 6, 2015), available at,
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Tourism-Hits-Record-50M-Visitors-290932611.html
4

Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:252

To begin, no facts are plead that could lead this court to divine that Doe has purposefully
directed any activities to this State or District. Simply reciting a straight-from-case-law standard,
that actions were directed toward this district, does not satisfy the need to plead facts that
competently support that conclusion.
Moreover, simply alleging that Koppaka was harmed in the Northern District is insufficient
as a matter of law. Labtest Int'l, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 2d at 861; see also, Shrum v. Big Lots Stores,
Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169113, 16 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2014) (As the Supreme Court and
Seventh Circuit have made clear, then, regardless of whether Plaintiff was harmed in Illinois,
Plaintiff cannot be the sole link between [the defendant] and Illinois).
Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit indicating its understanding of electronic mail has
stated that:
As a practical matter, email does not exist in any location at all; it bounces from
one server to another, it starts wherever the account-holder is sitting when she
clicks the "send" button, and it winds up wherever the recipient happens to be at
that instant. The connection between the place where an email is opened and a
lawsuit is entirely fortuitous.
Advanced Tactical Ordinance Sys., LLC., 751 F.3d at 803. As such, allegations that emails were
directed to this District by virtue of Koppaka existing in this district when he received []
unsolicited email[s] is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Likewise, allegations of what took place on servers of third-parties that are not plead to be
located in this District fail to support the conclusion that any activities took place in or were directed
into this District. An individual using a website could be accessing a server down the street, or one
in Iceland. This Court has recognized that the location of a server being accessed is the
appropriate inquiry when determining jurisdiction. JDA eHealth Sys. v. Chapin Revenue Cycle
Mgmt., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68174, 16-17 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2011) (finding jurisdiction
existed in the Northern District of Illinois when the defendant accessed a server in Naperville); see
4

Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:253

also, Advanced Tactical Ordinance Systems, supra (understanding that servers exist in more than
one place). Koppaka has failed to plead a single fact suggesting that Doe created accounts on
servers existing in this District. As such, there are no facts plead that lead to specific personal
jurisdiction existing here.
While it may be argued that it is premature to dismiss this case until Doe has been named
in this action,5 this Court has sua sponte dismissed claims against Doe defendants when plaintiffs
counsel could have readily ascertained that personal jurisdiction was lacking.6 CP Prods., Inc. v.
Does 1-300, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113013, 2011 WL737761, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2011). A
textbook example of that ability exists in the case at bar. Koppaka could have readily determined
that Doe resides in Tennessee prior to seeking his identity from AT&T.
In VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1,017, counsel for Koppaka filed an Amicus Brief for the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 11-cv-2068 (ECF Doc. 22-1) (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2011). He also filed
the declaration of a Mr. Seth Schoen. In 4 8 of his Declaration, Mr. Schoen explains how to
use many tools freely available to the public that help reveal where a person using a particular IP
address is likely to be physically located. Id. at pp. 36-37.7
Moreover, in this case, Counsel for Koppaka has submitted a declaration relying upon his
experience litigating matters with anonymous parties and expressing knowledge about the
practices of internet service providers. (ECF Doc. 4-1). Koppakas counsel is well-versed in
matters such as this anonymous internet activities, and he leveraged this fact in a declaration in
order to obtain early discovery from this Court. As such, it is that evident counsel is well aware that

See, e.g., First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, 276 F.R.D. 241, 251 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ("Defendants cannot be
dismissed . . . from a lawsuit to which they are not yet parties.")
6 Additionally, the prejudice of being publicly accused of violation of a criminal statute makes it all the more important to
have this resolved prior to Doe being named and served.
7 Counsel for Koppaka has filed substantially similar declarations, with the same explanations about free geo-location
tools, in other cases before this Court. See, Openmind Solutions, Inc., v. Does 1-2925, 11-cv-0092 (ECF Doc. 11-3)
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2011).
5

Case: 1:14-cv-06716 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/27/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:254

he could use free, web-based, geoloation tools to readily ascertain that Does IP Address locates
to Tennessee, not this District. Accordingly, it is just and proper to dismiss this case, despite Doe
not having yet been served in this matter.
VI. Conclusion
This Court lacks jurisdiction over Doe. He is from Tennessee and none of the allegations
in the Complaint provide this Court with jurisdiction over the matter. As such, the relief sought in
the Motion should be granted
Respectfully Submitted,
JOHN DOE, by
/s/ Jonathan LA Phillips
Jonathan LA Phillips
Shay Phillips, Ltd.
456 Fulton St. | Ste. 255
Peoria, IL | 61602
t | 309.494.6155
f | 309.494.6156
e| jphillips@skplawyers.com
One of John Does attorneys
Certificate of Service
I certify that on February 27, 2015 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court
via the Courts ECF filing system, thereby serving it upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Jonathan LA Phillips