My Web Wholesalers, a small company in Maine, used the Internet to do business around the country. It made offers on its Web site but did not distribute e-mails to customers who did not request information.
Blimka, an Idaho resident, discovered My Web when surfing the net. He called My Web to discuss bulk merchandise offered on the Web site. DePalma, a My Web manager, agreed to sell Blimka 26,500 pairs of jeans for a total of $20,935. Blimka wired the money to My Web. When a shipment of 16,000 pairs of jeans arrived, Blimka called My Web to complain that the jeans were not of the quality discussed.
Blimka sued My Web and DePalma in state court in Idaho for the tort of fraud. Defendants were properly served in Maine, but did not respond to the complaint, so the district court issued a judgment against My Web and DePalma. Defendants filed a motion for relief from the judgment, claiming it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court held that it had personal jurisdiction. Defendants appealed.

1. The Idaho high court held that Idaho courts have jurisdiction over an out-of-state seller who misrepresented goods sold over the Internet. Does this mean most Internet-based sellers are subject to jurisdiction in every state where they have a customer?
2. Why did My Web not move the case from Idaho state court to federal court?