United States Eighth Circuit

In an action brought by former counsel for a senator against defendant and several corporate entities for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of defendant's sexually explicit novel and the potential development of a future television series based on it, various dismissal rulings against plaintiff are affirmed in part, but reversed in part where: 1) a remand was required for discovery to determine whether there was general personal jurisdiction over defendant-book publisher; 2) the district court did not err in granting a stay of discovery or in dismissing his claims against Disney for lack of personal jurisdiction; and 3) a refusal to allow discovery, and Rule 12(b) dismissal of claims, against HBO and Time Warner was proper as the complaint lacked any factual support for a claim that plaintiff was injured by a yet undeveloped television series.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/06/2008
• Published 03/06/2008

Judges

• MURPHY, Circuit Judge., Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and JARVEY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• J. Thomas Sullivan, argued, Little Rock, AR (Jonathan Rosen, Bedminster, NJ, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Philip S. Anderson, argued, Little Rock, AR (Jess Askew III and Clayborne S. Stone, on the brief), for appellees, Hyperion books and Disney Publishing., Nathan M. Norton, argued, Little Rock, AR (Claire Shows Hancock and Gary D. Marts, Jr., on the brief) for appellees, HBO and Time Warner.