Plaintiffs Kurt and Janella Stokinger sued Armslist, LLC, an online marketplace for firearms, in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit alleged that Armslist negligently and recklessly designed its website to facilitate the illegal sale of a firearm that was later used to shoot Officer Kurt Stokinger in Boston in 2016. Armslist moved to dismiss, arguing it lacked personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire because it had not purposefully availed itself of the state's laws. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery and dismissed the case, finding that Armslist's contacts with New Hampshire were insufficient. The Stokingers appealed, challenging both the dismissal and the denial of discovery.
The First Circuit analyzed the specific jurisdiction test, focusing on whether Armslist purposefully availed itself of New Hampshire's laws. The court agreed with the District Court that the website's design features—such as a geographic filter and an FAQ advising sellers to list items where they are physically located—did not alone prove that Armslist deliberately targeted New Hampshire. The court reasoned that a website accessible nationwide with a generic filter is not enough to show intent to target a specific state. However, the court diverged from the District Court regarding evidence of post-2016 contacts. The plaintiffs introduced evidence that from 2018 onward, Armslist hosted an average of 16,000 listings per year specifically tagged for New Hampshire. The court found this evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing that Armslist knew its website was being used to facilitate sales in New Hampshire specifically, rather than just generally. The court noted that while this evidence established purposeful availment, the 'relatedness' prong of the jurisdiction test—whether the claims arise from these specific listings—remained an open question for the District Court to address on remand. Regarding the denial of discovery, the court affirmed the District Court's decision, noting that the plaintiffs failed to file a formal motion or provide specific factual allegations explaining what evidence they sought and how it would establish jurisdiction.
The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is vacated in part, allowing the plaintiffs to potentially proceed if they can prove that the post-2016 New Hampshire listings are related to their claims. The court leaves the 'relatedness' and 'reasonableness' prongs of the jurisdiction test for the lower court to resolve. The denial of jurisdictional discovery stands, meaning the plaintiffs cannot compel further evidence on the specific mechanics of the listings beyond what they have already proffered.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download