| Chapter : | Introduction |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
Ehrenfeld was published in 2003. The book was published by an American company and distributed widely in the United States. In that book, the author evidently made serious allegations about a Saudi Arabian named Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz and his family. The book was not distributed in the United Kingdom, but apparently twenty-three copies were purchased in the United Kingdom via the internet and a chapter of the book was available on an American Web site that was not affiliated with the author or publisher. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in London based on the twenty-three copies of the book that were in the United Kingdom. In 2004, after Ehrenfeld failed to appear and lodge a defence, Bin Mahfouz obtained both a monetary judgment and an injunction against further distribution of the book in England and Wales. The default judgment also contained findings that statements in her book were false. Bin Mahfouz posted the judgment on a Web site and effectively broadcasted the judgment to the public. Ehrenfeld had never filed a response in the English legal proceedings but subsequently sought declaratory relief in the federal court in New York City for a ruling that the English judgment was not enforceable in the United States and that Bin Mahfouz could not prevail on a libel claim had the claim been pursued in the United States.2 In 2006 a US District Court granted Bin Mahfouz’s motion to dismiss the declaratory relief action for lack of personal jurisdiction and the stage was set for Rachel’s campaign for legislative change—a successful campaign pursued with evangelical zeal.
Ehrenfeld was published in 2003. The book was published by an American company and distributed widely in the United States. In that book, the author evidently made serious allegations about a Saudi Arabian named Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz and his family. The book was not distributed in the United Kingdom, but apparently twenty-three copies were purchased in the United Kingdom via the internet and a chapter of the book was available on an American Web site that was not affiliated with the author or publisher. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in London based on the twenty-three copies of the book that were in the United Kingdom. In 2004, after Ehrenfeld failed to appear and lodge a defence, Bin Mahfouz obtained both a monetary judgment and an injunction against further distribution of the book in England and Wales. The default judgment also contained findings that statements in her book were false. Bin Mahfouz posted the judgment on a Web site and effectively broadcasted the judgment to the public. Ehrenfeld had never filed a response in the English legal proceedings but subsequently sought declaratory relief in the federal court in New York City for a ruling that the English judgment was not enforceable in the United States and that Bin Mahfouz could not prevail on a libel claim had the claim been pursued in the United States.2 In 2006 a US District Court granted Bin Mahfouz’s motion to dismiss the declaratory relief action for lack of personal jurisdiction and the stage was set for Rachel’s campaign for legislative change—a successful campaign pursued with evangelical zeal.
When Ehrenfeld appealed the dismissal of her declaratory relief claim to the US Court of Appeals, the Court declared that there were unsettled areas of New York law that required resolution and referred the matter to the high court of New York state, the Court of Appeals.3 The New York Court of Appeals reviewed all of Bin Mahfouz’s conduct in New York and, in 2007, found that he had not purposefully availed himself of the privileges and benefits of transacting business in New York and that his activities in New York were all in conjunction with the underlying legal proceedings in London.4 The court further observed that New York’s jurisdictional statute, unlike that of California and some other states, was not coextensive with the maximum breadth of American jurisdiction