The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion in *Stokinger v. Armslist, LLC* addressing the complex question of personal jurisdiction over website operators in the digital age. The case involves Kurt Stokinger, a former Boston police officer, and his wife Janella Stokinger, who sued Pennsylvania-based Armslist, LLC in federal district court in New Hampshire.
Armslist operates Armslist.com, an online marketplace for firearms and firearm-related products. The Stokingers' lawsuit alleges that the company facilitated the sale of a firearm in New Hampshire in 2015 that was subsequently used to shoot Officer Stokinger in Boston in 2016. The plaintiffs brought claims under New Hampshire law including negligence and public nuisance.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. The central legal issue on appeal concerned whether Armslist could be subject to personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire based on the design and operation of its website.
Chief Judge Barron, writing for the First Circuit panel, noted that courts "once again must determine whether the owner of a website is subject to personal jurisdiction based on the design and operation of that website." This reflects the ongoing challenges federal courts face in applying traditional personal jurisdiction principles to internet-based businesses.
The case proceeded under unusual circumstances. Judge Selya originally heard oral arguments and participated in initial deliberations. However, his death on Feb. 22, 2025, ended his involvement in the case. The remaining two-judge panel of Chief Judge Barron and Circuit Judge Rikelman issued the opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d), which allows two-judge panels to decide cases under specific circumstances.
The Stokingers were represented by a team of attorneys including Douglas N. Letter, working alongside counsel from Blank Rome LLP, McDowell & Morrissette PA, and Brady United Against Gun Violence. The involvement of Brady United, a prominent gun violence prevention organization, signals the broader policy implications of the case beyond the specific jurisdictional question.
Armslist was represented by attorneys from McLane Middleton, Professional Association, including Andrew R. Hamilton and Mark C. Rouvalis, along with Joseph A. Foster and Min Ji Nham.
Personal jurisdiction over website operators has become an increasingly complex area of law as courts struggle to apply traditional legal concepts to digital commerce. The Supreme Court has established that personal jurisdiction requires either general jurisdiction, where a defendant has substantial and continuous contacts with a state, or specific jurisdiction, where the lawsuit arises from the defendant's contacts with the forum state.
For website operators, courts typically examine factors including whether the site is interactive, whether it conducts business in the forum state, and whether it deliberately targets residents of that state. The mere existence of a website accessible in a state is generally insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
The case represents another chapter in ongoing litigation against online gun marketplaces. Armslist has faced multiple lawsuits across the country from families affected by gun violence, with plaintiffs arguing that the platform's design and policies facilitate illegal gun sales. The company has generally defended its operations as lawful commerce protected by federal law.
The involvement of a former police officer as plaintiff adds another dimension to the case. Law enforcement officers have increasingly become targets of gun violence, making Officer Stokinger's shooting part of a broader national conversation about police safety and gun access.
The First Circuit's decision will likely influence how other federal courts approach personal jurisdiction questions involving online gun marketplaces and similar e-commerce platforms. The ruling could affect whether victims of gun violence can pursue legal action in their home jurisdictions or must travel to states where online platforms are based.
The case also highlights the intersection of state tort law with federal commerce conducted over the internet. New Hampshire's specific laws regarding negligence and public nuisance provide the substantive legal framework, while federal courts must determine their authority to hear such claims.
Given the incomplete nature of the available court record, the specific outcome of the jurisdictional determination remains unclear. However, the case represents an important development in the evolving law governing online commerce and personal jurisdiction in the digital age.
The decision comes at a time when federal courts are grappling with how traditional legal concepts apply to modern technology platforms. As e-commerce continues to grow and cross state boundaries, questions of where companies can be sued and under what circumstances will likely continue to generate litigation and evolve through judicial interpretation.