in fact refers to whether “the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s forum-state activity” whereas legal cause refers to whether “the defendant’s in-state conduct gave birth to the cause of action.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Defendant’s contacts with Puerto Rico, mainly through the use of its interactive website www.walgreens.com, which facilities the prescription refilling process, bares no relationship to Plaintiffs alleged harm. Www.walgreens.com is neither the but-for or actual cause of Plaintiffs injury because there is no indication that Plaintiffs used walgreens.com to refill the prescription which was allegedly negligently dispatched. Hurley v. Cancun Playa Oasis Int’l Hotels, No. 99-574, 1999 WL 718556, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs would have fared no better had
holding action did not arise under the patent laws holding that tort law claim for injuries allegedly sustained because of negligently improper denial of coverage did not arise under act holding that the uscfc did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim because plaintiffs claim of negligence sounds in tort holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding that the plaintiffs tort claim did not arise out of the defendants website because the plaintiff did not contend that he used the website to make a reservation