Kambarov alleged that Quality Counts completed an employment report about him, sold it to Elwood Staffing, and published inaccurate information. The report concerned whether an Oregon state court validly convicted an Oregon resident of a felony, and it undermined his eligibility for a job with an Oregon branch of Elwood Staffing.
The district court had dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The panel reviewed that conclusion de novo, observing that when such a motion is decided on written materials, "the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts."
Applying Oregon's long-arm statute and the three-part test from Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., the court turned to the Calder effects test to assess whether Quality Counts purposefully directed conduct at Oregon. The panel found the first element met because Quality Counts "committed intentional acts by completing the report and publishing inaccurate information."
On the second element, the court held that Quality Counts "expressly aimed the dissemination of the allegedly false report at Oregon." The report was drawn from Oregon state court records, and the only harm Kambarov suffered — "the termination of his employment and related emotional harm" — occurred in Oregon.
Although Elwood Staffing is headquartered in Indiana, an Oregon office requested the report and had direct access to Quality Counts' portal. "In no meaningful sense" was the report "directed toward" Indiana, the panel concluded, and Oregon remained "the focal point of the report and the harm suffered."
The third Calder element was satisfied, the court said, because Quality Counts knew Kambarov lived in Oregon and had applied for a job with Elwood Staffing there. By effectively publishing the false report in Oregon, the company "knew or should have known it would cause reputational harm" in the state.
Because the district court did not address the second and third Briskin factors — whether the claim arises out of forum-related activities and whether jurisdiction comports with fair play — the panel vacated the dismissal and remanded for the court to complete the jurisdictional analysis.