Dumond, Inc. v. Galgano, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 429 (September 19, 2025) Lazarus, P.J.
Judges: BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J. OPINION BY LAZARUS, P.J.
Dumond, Inc., and Dumond Chemicals, Inc. (collectively, Dumond), appeal from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting the preliminary objections filed by Appellees Thomas M. Galgano (Attorney Galgano) and his law firm, Galgano IP Law PLLC (Law Firm), dismissing Dumond’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
Dumond, a company incorporated in New York, manufactures various industrial products and primarily operates out of Pennsylvania. Dumond retained New York-based Attorney Galgano and Law Firm to evaluate one of its products “for potential trademark infringement.” In 2020, based upon the advice of Attorney Galgano, Dumond began marketing and selling that product. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., sued Dumond in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for trademark infringement. The North Carolina court transferred that case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Our Supreme Court has adopted the following three-part test when conducting a personal jurisdiction analysis:
(1) Did the plaintiff’s cause of action arise out of or relate to the out-of-state defendant’s forum-related contacts?
(2) Did the defendant purposely direct its activities, particularly as they relate to the plaintiff’s cause of action, toward the forum state or did the defendant purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein?
(3) Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in the forum state satisfy the requirement that it be reasonable and fair?
Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 662 Pa. 627, 240 A.3d 537, 556 (Pa. 2020)
The facts cited by Dumond as establishing a “purposeful availment” are Galgano: (1) establishing a website accessible by Pennsylvania citizens; (2) sending legal correspondence to Dumond at its Pennsylvania offices; and (3) being aware that Dumond manufactured its products in Pennsylvania.
Beginning with Galgano’s website, Dumond highlights the fact that the site “advertises ‘[Attorney] Galgano had prosecuted thousands of patents, trademarks and copyrights on behalf of a broad base of regional, national, and international clientele.'” We do not deem this contact relevant to our analysis. For jurisdictional purposes we apply “a ‘sliding scale’ analysis . . . based largely on the degree and type of interactivity’ on the site.” Moyer v. Teledyne Cont’l Motors, Inc., 2009 PA Super 124, 979 A.2d 336, 349 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted) (en banc). If the site merely “make[s] . . . information available to those who are interested in it,” it is a “passive” site and cannot justify specific jurisdiction. Galgano’s website is passive in nature.
To the extent that Dumond argues the foreseeability of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania supports its jurisdictional arguments, we disagree. The United States Supreme Court has addressed this issue:
[T]he constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established “minimum contacts” in the forum State. [International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316]. Although it has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts there when policy considerations so require, the Court has consistently held that this kind of foreseeability is not a “sufficient benchmark” for exercising personal jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S., at 295[.] Instead, “the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis . . . is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id., at 297[.]
Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474 (footnote omitted).
Even if it were foreseeable that Dumond would be “injured” in Pennsylvania by a lawsuit, it does not follow that Galgano could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this Commonwealth based on its work in this case. This is not a case where Galgano traveled to Pennsylvania to do work for Dumond or otherwise represented it in this Commonwealth.
We, therefore, conclude that, regardless of where the injury manifested itself in the form of a lawsuit, the underlying “harm” was caused in New York, where Attorney Galgano gave the advice. The contacts between Galgano and Pennsylvania are of insufficient quality to confer jurisdiction.
