Whether the district court and Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, Niello and the Murphy, Austin, Adams, et al law firm, despite their extensive contacts with the plaintiff in Texas through online sales and communications related to the fraudulent sale of a vehicle

QUESTIONS PRESENTED © Petitioner is a consumer, who was seeking reliable transportation. Even though the Petitioner have pled that he first noticed the subject vehicle, a 2003 Mercedes Benz on Respondents website, the Fifth Circuit, the district court as well as Respondent’s legal counsel have consistently stated the falsity that the vehicle was advertised on another website. This case is presented to this Court over a dispute of jurisdiction regarding the Internet, Cyberspace, and Websites. Respondent Niello committed fraud upon the Petitioner through its Internet sales staff, and their legal counsel Murphy, Austin, Adams, et al assisted in the fraudulent act. Respondents Niello and Murphy, Austin et al law firm communicated heavily with the Petitioner in Texas to purchase , the subject vehicle. There were sufficient contacts. , Appellant purchased a Mercedes Benz 2003 model with , 35,188 miles on the odometer from Niello. Appellant contacted ’ Respondent Niello, and Candy Beck who was and still is an Internet salesperson at Niello contacted Petitioner on or about September 25, 2013, and began negotiating a price to purchase , the Mercedes Benz. However, Drake had to file a lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas in 2014 to prompt Niello to sell the vehicle. The case was voluntarily dismissed prior to Drake discovering fraud that Niello had committed. See App. J, 36-38. li Petitioner refiled in the Southern District of Texas in 2017. Fraud carries a 4-year statutes of limitations. The district court did not have jurisdiction over Respondents Niello and : Murphy, Austin, et al law firm and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Respondent Niello communicated with Petitioner heavily, advertised the subject vehicle referenced herein on their own Internet website (Niello Porsche), and their Internet sales person contacted the Petitioner regarding the sale of the subject vehicle. Moreover, Respondent Niello have a credit card that they also advertise on their website, and consumers are able to apply for the credit card through Niello’s website. Further, Respondent Niello also sells vehicles nationwide, and it was Respondent Niello who delivered the subject vehicle to the Petitioner in Texas at their cost. Niello conspired with Respondent Murphy, Austin, et al to commit fraud against ina settlement agreement in Texas. Petitioner was unaware of the ' fraud before the subject vehicle was delivered to him in Texas. Petitioner signed a settlement agreement in Texas but Niello’s legal counsel demanded that the Petitioner sign yet another copy of the settlement agreement while he was in California. Respondent Niello through Respondent Murphy, Austin et al law firm claims that the settlement agreement that the Petitioner signed with Niello which was an act of fraud, trigger . iii ed res judicata, the Petitioner sharply disagrees. There has been heavy communication between the Petitioner and Respondents Niello and Murphy, Austin, et al law firm, thus it is the Petitioner’s legal analyses that according to Zippo, the district court did in fact have jurisdiction to hear the Petitioner’s case in Texas. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997. The district court relied on and : cited International Shoe for its reasons of dismissing Petitioner’s case, however the playing field regarding regarding companies that utilize the , Internet and or their websites to sell products that are interactive through commerce have changed substantially. Respondent Murphy, Austin et al law firm who also committed unethical acts, which includes conspiracy to commit fraud, and assisted Niello in covering up the fraud committed by their employees and staff because both the law firm and undoubtedly Niello had made sufficient contacts with the state _ , Of Texas to avail themselves to the jurisdiction of a court in . Texas. Thus, there were enough contacts that the district court _ had jurisdiction to hear the Appellant’s case. Iv Inde