WPC1 've"@oZ@q7Og?I`2yq yYx< O3)ZHQTn0wUҝZ%]x sɵ"&f>4X ie%eٴzcp @,:~'t*@{Yt8"i_M'B =4oP2e*;S =1$ 𙘓i9s㸅eTڊVm^Zȹ rr Q@Ӱ5ujhz` ,(g;fQ]1y+auxMhMMU^M靹*)Cc.ʃoˉ_Σ 饭>+ZH!U@EK7n焣z2ߵw%ϔǨreC`Yԏ0k[$B0/tݙ{< yGEL!DgԨ%FcaFOaJeK]]ip?sMЁ ̳+{wZU=Bn. %  0j 0| 0{ 0bQU. 0N 0|/ 0pUB 0] 0x 0 g 0 0= 0 0e 0 0=g D+ AQ` 0C!/!#UB%0&9)U , 0^.,/ 0 f4X` hp x (#>  T} :Normal (Web)Normal (Web)  XXXC %2A`ArialTTC        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW  %2A`ArialTTVr:documentbodydocumentbody1C %2A`ArialTTC        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTWZ :annotation tannotation text  W\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW  d:annotation rannotation referenceW \  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW\  `*Times New RomanTT`:footnote reffootnote reference        V :footnote texfootnote text  W\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW  H&&4HyperlinkHyperlink            h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph Font        H3( 4heading 1heading 1&             '      )XXXXXX  XRB>zHx p @X@E%dd%d %%%%,X$(#%X$ &&%%X, %%&&H.` hp x (#%(#%H(Y2$ %m-!XXXXXX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(Y2$ %m-!XXXXXX  (Y2$ %m-!XXXXXX  ($    'dxdC<< c V "XXXXXX    $(#%X$            @    1  A        ($     % %m-!XXXXXX  X  RgXXRgRg              1  %      ݀AllofthefactsweretakendirectlyfromtheDefendantsMotiontoDismissandthePlaintiffsResponsetothe  MotiontoDismiss.  %m-!XXXXXX  X  RgXXRgRg              2  %      ݀MaryCLEallegesthatitneverknowingly optedintoidealclick.comtoreceivepromotionalemails.Vi `*Times New RomanTT  %m-!XXXXXX  X  RgXXRgRg              3  %      ݀Pikev.BruceChurch,Inc.,397U.S.137,142,90S.Ct.844,25L.Ed.2d174(1970)(notingthat wherethestatute  regulatesevenhandedlytoeffectuatealegitimatelocalpublicinterest,anditseffectsoninterstatecommerceare V onlyincidental,itwillbeupheldunlesstheburdenimposedonsuchcommerceisclearlyexcessiveinrelationtothe L putativelocalbenefits.Ifalegitimatelocalpurposeisfound,thenthequestionbecomesoneofdegree.). / %m-!XXXXXX  X  RgXXRgRg              4  %      ݀SeeStatev.Heckel,24P.3d404(Wash2001)(holdingthataWashingtonstatutewasvalidandnotviolativeofthe  dormantCommerceClause). K %m-!XXXXXX  X  RgXXRgRg              5  %      ݀SeeFergusonv.Friendfinders,Inc.,94Cal.App.4th1255,115Cal.Rptr.2d258(1stDist.2002)(holdingthata  Californiaantispamstatutewasnotunconstitutional).(28$ %m-!XXXXXX  XXX  0  3|x (>m-$XXXXXXHP LaserJet 5M,,,,0!Ă:2 n1yweb0 U d %m-!XXXXXX  _XX  INTHECIRCUITCOURTFORMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,MARYLAND    MARYCLE,LLC,  etal. h     * X  ` Plaintiff   h     *  0 `  v.   h     * p   Cv.No.248514( x` %` % 0 `   ` %` % 0 `  FIRSTCHOICEINTERNET,INC.,etal.  *  ` %` % 0 ` Defendant  ` %` % 0 `     h     *H  ` %` % 0 `   ` %` % *0 ` * *  * h *  *  * p *  *  * x * * (# *( ` %` % 0 `   ` %` % &             MEMORANDUMOPINION    h  %    ' h     ` ThePlaintiffs,MaryCLE,LLC(MaryCLE)andNEITSolutions,LLC(NEIT)filedsuit H  againsttheDefendants,FirstChoiceInternet,Inc.(FirstChoice)andJosephFrevola(Frevola)for  violatingMarylandsCommercialElectronicMailAct(MCEMA).Md.CodeAnn.,Com.Law, h 143001etseq.(2002).Specifically,thePlaintiffssoughttoenjointheDefendantsfrom  sendingunsolicited,false,andmisleadingcommercialelectronicmailmessagestoitselectronic 8 mailaccountsandtorecoverstatutorydamagesfromtheDefendantsforthemessagesthatwere  sent. X  ` ThePlaintiffsComplaintallegesthattheDefendantssentmisleadingcommercial 8 electronicmailtothePlaintiffsatanemailaddressthattheDefendantskneworshouldhave x! knownwasheldbyresidentsofMarylandinviolationoftheMCMEA.Thepromotionalemails  X# sentbyFirstChoicetoMaryCLEsemailaddressweresentfromMasterMailings,LLC,First !% Choicesmailserverprovider,locatedinVirginia,toMaryCLE,whichmaintainsitsprimary (#x' placeofbusinessandofficeinWashington,DC.Thepromotionalemailswereapparentlyrouted $ ) throughNEITSolutions,LLC,aninteractivecomputerserviceproviderthathostsMaryCLEs H&!+ emailaccountsandmaintainsitsprimarycomputerserversinDenver,Colorado. '(#-  ` TheDefendantsfiledaMotiontoDismissorinthealternativeaMotionforSummary h)$/ Judgmentonthreegrounds:(1)TheMCEMAviolatesthedormantCommerceClauseofthe *H&1 UnitedStatesConstitution;(2)ThisCourtlackspersonaljurisdictionovertheDefendants;and ,'3 (3)PlaintiffsimproperlyfiledsuitagainstDefendantFrevolaindividually.Thiscourtgrantsthe .h)5 DefendantsMotiontoDismissandholdsthattheMCEMAdoesinfactviolatethedormant  CommerceClause. @   I.Facts.         1           ` MaryCLEisaMarylandcorporationwithitsprimaryplaceofbusinessinWashington, `  D.C.Itisaconsumerprotectionfirmthathassuccessfullycollectedseveralsettlementsfrom  @ unscrupulousemailmarketersundertheMCEMA.EricMenhart(Menhart),thepresidentand    ownerofMaryCLE,hasinitiatedthisactiononbehalfofMaryCLE. `   ` MaryCLEsInternetserviceprovider(ISP)andcoplaintiffintheinstantactionisNEIT   Solutions.NEITisanISPbecauseitqualifiesasaninformationservice,system,oraccess 0  softwareproviderthatprovidesorenablescomputeraccessbymultipleuserstoacomputer  service.NEITsbilling,administration,technicalsupport,andmosteveryaspectofitsbusiness P ishandledwithintheStateofMaryland.NEIThostsMaryCLEstwolegallyowneddomain 0 names: marylandstateresident.comand marycle.com.Allemailcommunicationsto p MaryCLEareroutedthroughwebservers,whichareadministeredandleasedbyNEIT.Even P thoughNEITisaMarylandLimitedLiabilityCompany,theirserversarelocatedinasecure  NetworkOperationsCenterinDenver,Colorado.  p  ` BothDefendants,FirstChoiceandFrevola,arelocatedinCarlePlace,NewYork.First   ChoiceisanInternetmarketingcorporationthatmarketsandpromotesproductsforvarious @" customersthrough optinemailmailings,promotions,andwebsiteadvertisingprograms  $ directedtowardsanationalaudienceofpotentialInternetcustomers.FrevolaisthePresidentof `"& FirstChoice. #@(  ` FirstChoiceobtains optinemailaddresslistsofpotentialcustomersbyenteringinto % * partnershipagreementswithcompaniessuchasWowOffers,LLC,(WowOffers)acompanythat '`", runssweepstakespromotionswherepersonsentertheiremailaddressesintoapromotionto (#. receiveachancetowinaprizewhileagreeingthattheiremailaddresseswillbeeligibleto 0*%0 receivepromotionaloffersfromWowOffersanditspartners.WowOffersalsoobtainslistsof  emailaddressesthrough coregistrations,whichcomefromothercompaniesthatcollectemail @ addressesinasimilarmanner.Ineverycase,the optinemailaddresslistsusedbyFirst   Choicearecomprisedofpersonswho,accordingtoWowOffers,have optedinoragreedto `  receivepromotionalemailsthroughthesweepstakesorasimilarcoregistrationprocess.  @  ` AspartofFirstChoicespartnershipwithWowOffers,FirstChoicereceivedhundredsof    thousandsofemailaddressesofpersonswhohad optedintoreceivepromotionaloffers, `  includingtheemailaddressatissueinthiscase,      ejm@marylandstateresident.com%      ,whichisthe   emailaddressforMaryCLEandMenhart.WowOffersobtainedMaryCLEsemailaddresswhen 0  Menhartregisteredhisemailaddresson idealclick.com,whichthenprovidedtheemailaddress  toWowOffers.         2     FirstChoiceretainedtheservicesofMasterMailings,LLC(MasterMailings), P acompanythatspecializesindeliveringpromotionalmessagesto optinemailaddresslists,to 0 sendthepromotionalemailstoMaryCLEsemailaddress.AtnotimedidFrevolaorFirst p Choiceactuallyperformthephysicalactofsendinganypromotionalemailsormailingsto P MaryCLE,astheemailsweresentthroughtheserversoperatedbyMasterMailings.   ` MaryCLEbeganreceivingunsolicitedemailmessagesfromtheDefendantstothe  p address      ejm@marylandstateresident.com %      ݀onSeptember18,2003.Thesemessagescontinued   throughOctober29,2003atapproximatelytwoperday.ThemessagesweresentbyMaster @" Mailings,underthedirectionoftheDefendants,whosuppliedthelistsofemailaddresses,as  $ wellastheinformationtodisplayinthe fromfield,the subjectfield,andthecontentofeach `"& ofthemessages.MenhartrepliedtoalloftheDefendantsemails,requestingthattheMaryCLE #@( emailaddressberemovedfromtheDefendantsmailinglists.MaryCLEsattemptstocontact % * theDefendantsonover80occasionswereunsuccessful.Menharteventuallyvisitedthe '`",  firstchoiceinternet.comwebsite,whereamonitoredemailaddress, (#.        joe@firstchoiceinternet.com$%      waslisted,alongwithavalidtelephonenumber.Menhartlefta 0*%0 messageforFrevola,sentanemail,andmailedtwoletters,requestingthatMaryCLEberemoved +'2 fromFirstChoicesmailinglist.FrevolarespondedtoMenhartsrequestinaletterandthe  emailssubsequentlystopped. @  ` Inaddition,everypromotionalemailsenttoMaryCLEbyFirstChoicethroughMaster   Mailingscontainedan unsubscribelink.Menhartneverutilizedtheunsubscribelinkandthus `  never optedoutofreceivingthepromotionalemailsfromFirstChoice.  @  ` Inordertodeterminethephysicallocationwhereanemailaddressisbased,themost    reliabletechniqueistoplugtheIPlocatorfortheemailaddressintoan IPTrackersuchas `        www.discoveryvip.com/ipaddress.htm,g)%      ݀whichwillthenprovidethephysicallocationofa   computerusingaparticularemailaddress.InthecaseofMaryCLE,theIPaddressofthe 0  computerthatwasusedwhenMaryCLE optedinwas66.171.38.224,whichislocatedin  Reston,Virginia,notMaryland. P  ` Currently,thereisbothfederallawandMarylandstatelawpertainingtounsolicited 0 commercialemail.Theapplicablefederalstatuteknownasthe ControllingtheAssaultofNon p SolicitedPornographyandMarketingActof2003or CANSPAMActwaspassedbythe P SenateonNovember25,2003,agreedtobytheHouseofRepresentativesonDecember8,2003,  andsignedintolawbythePresidentonDecember16,2003.Thelaw,whichestablishesafederal  p regulationofspamemail,tookeffectonJanuary1,2004.15U.S.C.A.7701etseq.(2004).   TheCANSPAMActpreemptsexistingstateantispamlaws excepttotheextentthatanysuch @" statute,regulation,orruleprohibitsfalsityordeceptioninanyportionofacommercialelectronic  $ mailmessageorinformationattachedthereto.Id.at7707(b)(1). `"&  ` TheMarylandGeneralAssemblyenactedtheCommercialElectronicMailActin2002. #@( Thestatutemakesitillegaltosendcommercialelectronicmail1)toanInternetdomainnameof % * athirdpartywithoutpermission;2)thatcontainsfalseinformationabouttheoriginpathofthe '`", email;or3)thathasafalseormisleadingsubjectline.Md.CodeAnn.,Com.Law,14 (#. 3002(b)(2).Specifically,theinstantcasepertainsto143002(b)(2)(iii).Thisportionofthe 0*%0 statutereads [c]ontainsfalseormisleadinginformationinthesubjectlinethathasthecapacity, +'2 tendency,oreffectofdeceivingtherecipient.Itisunclearwhetherthisisanobjectiveor P-(4 subjectivestandardorwhetherthedeceptionistobedeterminedfromthestandpointofthe  senderorthereceiveroftheemail.Therefore,thelanguageistoovaguetobeenforced.Thelaw @ appliesifthemessageissentfromacomputerwithinMaryland;ifthesenderknowsorshould   haveknownthattherecipientisaMarylandresident;oriftheregistrantofthedomainnamewill `  confirmuponrequestthattherecipientisaMarylandresident.Id.at143002(b)(1)&14  @ 3002(c).&@%XX&@%%&@     ` XX%&@XXXXBecauseCongresshasspecificallyreserved,totheStates,therighttocontrolfraudulent `  ormisleadingcommercialemail,thisCourtsfindingsprimarilyfocusontheMarylandstatute   asopposedtothefederallaw. 0    II.IssuesBeforethisCourt.     ` ThisCourtwaspresentedwiththreeissuesintheDefendantsMotiontoDismissorinthe P alternativeMotionforSummaryJudgment:(1)WhethertheMCEMAviolatesthedormant 0 CommerceClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution;(2)WhetherthisCourthaspersonal p jurisdictionovereitherDefendant;andlastly(3)WhetherJosephFrevolawasproperlynamedas P aDefendantindividually?    III.Analysis.  p   A. TheDormantCommerceClause :    ` ArticleIoftheConstitutiongivesCongressthepowertoregulatecommerce amongthe D" severalStates.U.S.Const.Art.I,8,cl.3.Thisclauseismorecommonlyreferredtoasthe  $$ CommerceClause.Congresstypicallyutilizesthispowerbyenactinglegislation,however,even d"& whenCongress hasnotactedeitheraffirmativelytoregulateaninterstateactivityorspecifically #D( tobarStatesfromdoingso,thecourtsmayfindcertainstateandlocallawsunconstitutionalif % * theyundulyburdeninterstatecommerceunderthedormantCommerceClause.MedstarHealthv. 'd", MarylandHealthCareCommn,376Md.1,45(2003).??US.,Today,whenalawischallengedunder (#. thedormantCommerceClause,atwostepprocessisutilizedtodeterminewhetheraviolation 4*%0 hasoccurred.FirsttheCourtexamineswhetherthestatuteisconstitutionalonitsfaceby +'2 determiningifitdiscriminatesagainstpersonsinotherstates.Ifso,thestatuteistypically T-(4 declaredunconstitutional.Ifthestatuteisfaciallyneutral,thentheCourtutilizesabalancingtest  asthesecondstepinitsevaluationofthestatute.TheCourtmustthendeterminewhetherthe @ interstateburdenimposedbythelawoutweighsthelocalbenefits.          3     Again,ifthisisthecase,the   lawisusuallydeemedunconstitutional. `   ` SeveralcourtshaveexaminedtheirrespectivestatestatutespertainingtotheInternet  @ underthedormantCommerceClauseandfoundtheirstatutestobeunconstitutional.US??.,See    AmericanLibrariesAssociationv.Pataki,969F.Supp.160(S.D.N.Y.1997);American `  BooksellersFoundationv.Dean,342F.3d96(2ndCir.2003);PSINet,Inc.v.Chapman,362   F.3d227(4thCir.2004).??US.,ԀInUS??.,PSINet,Inc.,theFourthCircuitheldthataVirginiastatute,which 0  regulatesthetransmissionofharmfulmaterialtominorsovertheInternet,violatedthedormant  CommerceClause.TheCourtnotedthat [s]everalcourtshavestruckdownstatestatutessimilar P toVirginia[s]8asundulyburdensomeoninterstatecommercebecausethey,ineffect,restrict 0 commercialelectronicmaterialsinallstates,notjustthestateinwhichthestatutewasenacted. p 362F.3dat239. P  ` Similarly,inAmericanLibraries,theDistrictCourtofNewYorkheldthataNewYork  statutewasviolativeofthedormantCommerceClausebecauseitundulyburdenedinterstate  p commerce.Furthermore,thecourtstatedthat:   0 ` 0 ` %` %TheInternetiswhollyinsensitivetogeographicdistinctions.Inalmostevery @" case,usersoftheInternetneitherknownorcareaboutthephysicallocationofthe  $ Internetresourcestheyaccess.Internetprotocolsweredesignedtoignorerather `"& thandocumentgeographiclocation;whilecomputersonthenetworkdohave #@( "addresses,"theyarelogicaladdressesonthenetworkratherthangeographic % * addressesinrealspace.ThemajorityofInternetaddressescontainnogeographic '`", cluesand,evenwhereanInternetaddressprovidessuchaclue,itmaybe (#. misleading. % % 969F.Supp.at17071. @  ` Lastly,inAmericanBooksellers,Vermontsstatutewhichregulatedsexuallyexplicit   materialsontheInternetwasheldinvalidasitviolatedthedormantCommerceClause.The `  courtfoundthatVermontsstatute has'projecteditslegislation'intootherStates,anddirectly  @ regulatedcommercetherein,"inviolationofthedormantCommerceClause.342F.3dat104    (citingBrownFormanDistillersCorp.v.N.Y.StateLiquorAuth.,476U.S.573,584,106S.Ct. `  2080,90L.Ed.2d552(1986)).    ` ThePlaintiffsassertthattheirclaimdoesnotfallwithinthepurviewoftheabove 0  mentionedcases,butratherisincongruencewithboththeWashington      !   4     andCalifornia      "   5     Courts  thathaveheldthattheirstatesantispamstatutesarevalid.InStatev.Heckel,24P.3d404 P (Wash.2001),theAttorneyGeneralfortheStateofWashingtonfiledsuitagainstanOregon 0 resident,JasonHeckel,forviolatingaWashingtonantispamstatute.Heckelsemailsallegedly p  containedmisleadingsubjectlinesandfalsetransmissionpaths.Id.at406.Althoughthetrial P courtfoundthatWashingtonsstatuteviolatedthedormantCommerceClause,theWashington  SupremeCourtfoundthatthestatutewasnotdiscriminatoryonitsfacebecauseit applies  p evenhandedlytoinstateandoutofstatespammersandthatitslocalbenefitsoutweighedany   burdenoninterstatecommerce.Id.at409,411.Thecourtfoundthat theonlyburdentheAct @" place[d]onspammers[wa]stherequirementoftruthfulness,arequirementthatdoesnotburden  $ commerceatallbutactuallyfacilitatesitbyeliminatingfraudanddeception.Id.at411. `"&  ` InFergusonv.Friendfinders,Inc.,94Cal.App.4th1255,115Cal.Rptr.2d258(1stDist. #@( 2002),MarkFerguson,aCaliforniaresident,broughtsuitagainstaCaliforniaresident,two % * Californiabusinesses,andothersforallegedlyviolatingaCaliforniastatutethatprohibitssending '`", unsolicitedcommercialemailsthataredeceptiveandmisleading.LikeHeckel,theCalifornia (#. trialcourtfoundthatthestatutewasunconstitutionalbecauseitviolatedthedormantCommerce  Clause.TheCaliforniaCourtofAppeals,however,reversedthetrialcourt,findingthatthe @ Californiastatuteisonlyapplicableto individualsandentitiesthat(1)dobusinessinCalifornia,   (2)utilizeequipmentlocatedinCalifornia,and(3)send[unsolicitedcommercialemail]to `  Californiaresidents.Id.at1264.  @  ` TheinstantcasedoesnotstandonallfourswithHeckelorFerguson.InHeckel,the    WashingtonAttorneyGeneralbroughtanactionagainstanOregonresidentforactionsthattook `  placewithintheStateofWashington.InFerguson,aCaliforniaresidentfiledsuitagainstother   CaliforniaresidentsforactionswhichtookplaceinCalifornia.Incontrast,theDefendants,inthe 0  caseatbar,areNewYorkresidentsandthePlaintiffisaMarylandcorporation.Eventhoughthe  PlaintiffCorporationisregisteredinMaryland,itsprimaryplaceofbusinessandofficeare P locatedintheDistrictofColumbia.TheDefendantshadnocontactwiththeStateofMaryland 0 becausetheiremailsweresentfromNewYork,routedthroughVirginiaandColorado,and p finallywerereceivedinWashington,D.C.Thus,theholdingsinHeckelandFergusondonot P applytotheinstantsetoffactsbecauseherethePlaintiffsareaskingthecourttoapplyMaryland  lawtoasituationwhichneveroccurredinMaryland.  p  ` ThisCourtfollowsthereasoningoftheVirginia,NewYork,andVermontCourtsand   holdsthatMarylandsCommercialElectronicMailActisunconstitutionalasitviolatesthe @" dormantCommerceClause.UndertheMCEMA,apartymaybesubjecttodamagesinMaryland  $ forsendingcommercialemailthat [i]sfromacomputerintheStateorissenttoanelectronic `"& mailaddressthatthesenderknowsorshouldhaveknownisheldbyaresidentoftheState.Md. #@( CodeAnn.,Com.Law,143002(b).Onitsface,thislanguagedoesnotdiscriminateagainst % * residentsfromotherstates,ratherthisisaquestionoffact.However,whenthelanguageis '`", appliedtothecaseatbaritdoesviolatethedormantCommerceClausebecausethelawcrosses (#. stateboundariestoreachpersonswhoopentheiremailinotherstates. 0*%0  ` ThestatutedoesnotprovidethattheemailmustbereceivedinMaryland,insteadthe +'2 statutepertainstosituationswhereanemailsenderinonestatessendsanemailtoaMaryland P-(4 residentlivingorworkinginanotherstate.Thus,thestatute,asappliedinthiscase,seeksto  regulatethetransmissionofcommercialemailbetweenpersonsinstatesoutsideofMaryland, @ evenwhentheemailneverentersMaryland,aslongastherecipientisaMarylandresident.   Therefore,FirstChoiceandFrevolasMotiontoDismissisgrantedontheconstitutionalgrounds `  thattheMCEMAisviolativeofthedormantCommerceClause.  @ B. Personal  Jurisdiction :     ` InlightofthefactthatthisCourtfindstheMarylandstatuteunconstitutional,thequestion d  ofpersonaljurisdictiondoesnothavetobeaddressed.However,thisCourtfindsitnecessaryto   addressthissubjecttofurthersubstantiatetheDefendantsMotiontoDismiss. 4   ` Marylandslongarmstatuteallowsacourttoexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveraperson  who causestortiousinjuryintheStatebyanactoromissionintheStateor causestortious T injuryintheStateoroutsideoftheStatebyanactoromissionoutsidetheStateifheregularly 4 doesorsolicitsbusiness,engagesinanyotherpersistentcourseofconductintheStateorderives t substantialrevenuefrom8theState.Md.CodeAnn.,Cts.&Jud.Proc.,6103(b)(3)! T (4).ThisCourtcannotexercisepersonaljurisdictionovertheDefendantsunderSection6  103(b)(3)becausetheDefendantsdidnotengageinanactoromissioninMarylandnordidthey $t causetortuousinjurywithintheStateofMaryland.InZinzv.EvansandMitchellIndustries,22   Md.App.126(1974),theMarylandCourtofSpecialAppealsfoundthatMarylanddidnothave D" personaljurisdictionoveraGeorgiacorporationandvicepresidentwhowroteandmailedaletter  $$ fromGeorgiathatwasreceivedinMaryland.Similarly,intheinstantcase,theDefendantssent d"& emailsfromNewYorktoMarylandresidentsresidinginWashington,D.C.EvenifthePlaintiffs #D( openedsomeoftheiremailinMaryland,Section6103(b)(3)wouldstillnotpermitthisCourtto % * exercisepersonaljurisdictionovertheDefendantsinaccordancewithZinz. 'd",  ` Additionally,underSection6103(b)(4),thisCourtcannotexercisepersonaljurisdiction (#. overtheDefendantsbecausetheDefendantsdonotregularlyconductbusiness,engagein 4*%0 persistentconductorderiverevenuesfromMaryland.Therefore,undertheMarylandlongarm +'2 statute,personaljurisdictionovertheDefendantscannotbeestablished. T-(4  ` CourtscanalsoexercisepersonaljurisdictionundertheFourteenthAmendmentofthe  DueProcessClause.Thisclauserequiresthatpersonaljurisdictiononlybeexercisedovera @ defendantwhohas certainminimumcontactswith[thecourt]suchthatthemaintenanceofthe   suitdoesnotoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.InternationalShoe `  Co.v.StateofWash.,OfficeofUnemploymentCompensationandPlacement,326U.S.310,  @ 316,66S.Ct.154,158(1945).Thecourthasalreadydeterminedwhenitcanexercise    jurisdictionincasesinvolvingtheInternet.InALSScan,Inc.v.DigitalServ.Consultants,Inc., `  293F.3d707(4thCir.2002),theFourthCircuitheldthata   0 ` 0 ` %` %Statemay,consistentwithdueprocess,exercisejudicialpoweroveraperson 0  outsideoftheStatewhenthatperson(1)directselectronicactivityintotheState,  (2)withthemanifestedintentofengaginginbusinessorotherinteractionswithin P theState,and(3)thatactivitycreates,inapersonwithintheState,apotential 0 causeofactioncognizableintheState'scourts.p % % Id.at714.ThecourtfoundthatMarylanddidnothavejurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendant P corporationthathadadvertiseditsservicestoMarylandresidentsontheInternet.Similarly,the  DefendantsdidnotintentionallydirecttheiremailstothePlaintiffsinMarylandbecausethe  p Defendantsdidnotevenknow,andhadnoabilitytoknow,wherethePlaintiffswouldactually   opentheemail.TheemailaddressesofMaryCLEareconnectedtoacomputerregisteredin @" Virginia,MaryCLEsprincipalplaceofbusinessisinWashington,D.C.andMaryCLEisa  $ registeredMarylandcorporation.TheDefendantshadnowayofknowingwhetherMaryCLE `"& wouldreceiveitsemailinVirginia,D.C.,Maryland,oranyotherstateforthatmatter.Thus,the #@( Defendantsdidnot purposelydirecttheiremailstoMarylandresidents. % * C. Individually : '`",  ` ThePlaintiffssuedFirstChoiceandFrevola,inhisindividualcapacityaspresidentof (#. FirstChoice.TheDefendantsassertthatFrevolacannotbesuedpersonallyfortheactionsof 4*%0 FirstChoiceandthisCourtagrees. +'2  ` Inorderforanofficerofacorporationtobefoundpersonallyliable,thecourtmustfind T-(4 thattheofficertookpartinthecommissionofatortbythecorporation.However,anofficerwho  doesnottakepartinthecommissionofatortcanonlybeheldpersonallyliableifhe @  specificallydirectedtheparticularacttobedoneorparticipatedorcooperatedtherein.Shipley   v.Perlberg,140Md.App.257,26566,780A.2d396,400(Md.App.2001)(quotingLeviv. `  Schwartz,201Md.575,583,95A.2d322(1953)).EvenifFirstChoicedidcommitatort  @ againstthePlaintiffsbysendingunsolicitedcommercialemail,Frevolashouldnotbeheld    personallyliablebecausehedidnotspecificallydirectFirstChoicetosendanemailtoMaryCLE `  ortoanyMarylandresidents.    ` UnderMarylandlaw,thisCourtcannotholdthatFrevolaisaproperpartytothisaction. 0  ThePlaintiffsdonotallegeintheirAmendedComplaintthatFrevolapurposelydirectedor  participatedinanyallegedmisconduct.Therefore,Frevolashouldbedismissedfromthesuit. P   III.Conclusion. 0    ` ThisCourtfindsthatMarylandsCommercialElectronicMailActisunconstitutionalas p ifviolatesthedormantCommerceClausewhenappliedtothecaseatbar.Evenifthestatutewas P foundtobeconstitutional,thisCourtdoesnothavepersonaljurisdictionovereitherDefendants,  astheyareNewYorkresidentsanddonothaveanyminimumcontactswiththeStateof  p Maryland,asrequiredbytheDueProcessClauseoftheConstitution.Lastly,theDefendant,   JosephFrevola,shouldnothavebeennamedasapartytothisactionbecause,aspresidentofthe @" corporationhecanonlybeheldpersonallyaccountableifheparticipatesordirectsthe  $ corporationtoactinatortuousmanner. `"&  `    XX        XX Dated:___________________    ___________________________________ % * 0 ` 0 ` %` %0 % % h     DURKEG.THOMPSON,JUDGEH&!+%%  `     h     CircuitCourtforMontgomery '`",  `     h     County,Maryland '(#-  `  `  `  `  P-(4  `  ` 2Ag    XXXXXXXX      INTHECIRCUITCOURTFORMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,MARYLAND     MARYCLE,LLC,etal. h     * ( x  ` Plaintiff   h     *    0 `  v.   h     * p   Cv.No.248514H  ` %` % 0 `   ` %` % 0 `  FIRSTCHOICEINTERNET,INC.,etal.  *( ` %` % 0 ` Defendant ` %` % 0 `     h     *h ` %` % 0 `   ` %` % *0 ` * *  * h *  *  * p *  *  * x * * (# *H ` %` %    XX        XX   ORDER  P    ` ItisbytheCircuitCourtforMontgomeryCounty,Maryland,this_____dayof 0 December,2004,so p Ag    XXXXXXXX     ` ORDERED,thatDefendantsMotionforDismissalbe,andherebyis,GRANTED. P  `     h      p      x 0 ` 0 ` %` %0 % %0h%%0h%h%  ________________________________8%%  `     h     DURKEG.THOMPSON,JUDGE XX   XX