Can Utah courts exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who send defamatory communications into Utah? Starways, Inc. v. Curry Explained

Background and Facts

Starways, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Utah, sued California residents Wesley Curry and Roberta Chase for libel and intentional interference with business advantage. The defendants operated as Curry & Chase Marketing and allegedly made defamatory communications through personal conversations and nationally broadcast facsimile transmissions. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing they had insufficient contacts with Utah to justify the court’s jurisdiction over them.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether Starways made a prima facie showing that defendants had sufficient contacts with Utah under Utah’s long-arm statute (Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24), and (2) whether exercising personal jurisdiction would comport with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants’ affidavits denied personally transmitting facsimiles into Utah but failed to deny causing such transmissions or making defamatory statements in personal conversations with Utah residents.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The court found that Utah’s long-arm statute encompasses the defendants’ alleged acts of causing tortious injury within Utah through defamatory communications. Applying the minimum contacts test from International Shoe, the court determined that defendants’ intentional conduct directed at Utah satisfied due process requirements. The court distinguished this case from mere “untargeted negligence,” emphasizing that defendants intentionally published defamatory statements to persons in Utah regarding a Utah-based business.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts will exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who intentionally direct harmful conduct into the state. Practitioners defending jurisdictional challenges must ensure their affidavits specifically controvert all material allegations, as general denials prove insufficient. The ruling also demonstrates Utah’s expansive interpretation of its long-arm statute “to the fullest extent allowed by due process,” making it easier for Utah plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in intentional tort cases.