PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Jurisdiction & Venue
......Personal Jurisdiction
.........Bases
............Minimum Contacts/Doing Business/Causing Effect
45 Cards On This Topic:

Oral agreement made in MI and stating he would do most of his work there, and his two trips to CA, did not create sufficient minimum contacts to subject D to personal jurisdiction in CA.

Although Internet company was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in CA, it had enough "minimum contacts" arising out of its actions in misappropriating rival's catalogs, etc., to justify specific jurisdiction.

Though celebrity gossip website not subject to general personal jurisdiction in CA, it had sufficient "minimum contacts" with CA arising out of its actions in reposting rival's copyrighted photos to justify specific jurisdiction.

Cal. dist. ct. had no personal jurisdiction over Ohio car dealership using Terminator's picture in its ad where dealership did not expressly aim its ad at Cal. buyers.

Dist. court in Cal. can exercise specific jurisdiction over trademark suit because complaint alleged D engaged in wrongful conduct that individually targeted P in Cal.

As DP requires D defend claims of non-CA and CA residents in CA, court properly denied D's motion to quash based upon specific jurisdiction—D engaged in substantial, continuous sales of Plavix throughout country.

Based on Ds' purposeful, successful solicitation of business from Cal. residents, P established purposeful availment; P's claims had substantial connection with Ds' Cal. contacts and Ds subject to specific jurisdiction in Cal.

D's knowledge that his tortious conduct re Internet website may harm industries centered in Cal. was by itself not enough to prove express aiming at forum state under Calder effects test.

Jack-in-the-Box franchisees and tort claims against them sufficiently related to Cal. franchiser to justify personal jurisdiction over franchisees.

Independent trucker driving truck in and out of state on continuous basis provided sufficient nexus between cause of action and activities for limited (but not general) jurisdiction.

Guaranty transaction not a sufficient basis on which to sustain personal jurisdiction; relationship to Cal. and effects caused in Cal., made exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable.

Plaintiff's declaratory relief action failed for lack of personal jurisdiction over D where the litigation did not arise out of defendant's sales and marketing in CA and where indemnity agreement between the parties was not CA-directed.

Guardian ad litem's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction properly granted where guardian was a UT resident litigating in CA solely on behalf of her mother.

Motion to quash personal jurisdiction improperly granted to Korean manufacturer of household cleaning product where CA resident was allegedly killed by product sold by manufacturer to CA distributor.

P's CA lawsuit for invasion of privacy and other C/As against out-of-state D properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where D's TX employee posted private photo on P's Facebook account with numerous CA friends.

Ps did not meet burden of presenting facts showing D's defamatory posting about them on Facebook in IL created minimum contacts so as to create personal jurisdiction in CA.

CA's specific jurisdiction test in tort cases is not so narrow or rigid as to require nonresident D to have expressly aimed its intentional conduct at P.

Placing products into stream of commerce in another state, aware some may be swept into forum state, not enough to subject D to personal jurisdiction—DP requires D engage in other conduct, directed at forum, for purposeful availment.

Out-of-state tribal corp. selling millions of cigarettes to small CA tribe for sale to general public purposefully derived benefit from CA activities under stream of commerce theory, and invoked personal jurisdiction of CA.

Substantial evidence supported ruling Irish Archdiocese which trained/ordained abusive priest in CA had insufficient contacts with CA to support either general or specific jurisdiction.

Specific personal jurisdiction over parent company based on activities of its subsidiary or sub-subsidiary is appropriate only if parent purposefully directed those activities at CA.

Court had specific jurisdiction over IT olive oil company with sales to CA: Dispute was company's alleged nondelivery of $406,000 worth of olive oil to P in CA, and D purposefully availed itself of benefits of CA forum.

Ins. co. did not subject itself to general or specific jurisdiction in CA merely by accepting premium payments from CA and by processing and paying claims submitted by its CA insureds for services rendered here.

By soliciting investors in CA through personal visits of employees, foreign Ds established sufficient contacts with CA to justify exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in CA.

Sufficient minimum contacts to exercise personal jurisdiction in a money judgment revival action exist by virtue of the original judgment.

Exercise of specific jurisdiction not proper where Ps did not show sufficient minimum contacts between out-of-state utility co. and CA and general jurisdiction under representative services doctrine inapplicable.

Motion to quash properly granted where no evidence showing FL car co. with web site had continuous, systematic contact with CA and P could not establish "purposeful availment" prong of specific jurisdiction test.

Trial ct. properly concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over nonresident foreign Ds: Honda, Volkswagen, Nissan and Canadian Auto Dealers' Assoc., in granting their motions to quash service of summons.

Trial court not required to draw mandatory inference in favor of jurisdiction and correct in finding Ps did not establish required jurisdict'l facts to support their theories.

Where telemarketers purposefully availed themselves of privileges of conducting activities in Cal. by upselling product to Cal. residents, minimum contacts existed for specific personal jurisdiction.

P met burden of proving, for specific personal jurisdiction, that Archdiocese sent known pedophile priest to Cal.; the conduct was expressly aimed at Cal. and Archdiocese knew would cause harm here.

Cal. distributor did not show requisite minimum contacts to support general or specific jurisdiction over Italian manufacturer who sold products to him in Italy.

Even if Philippine corp. lacked sufficient Cal. contacts for general jurisdiction, P's claim arose out of or was related to D's Cal.-based activities and Cal. could exercise ••specific•• jurisdiction over D for this claim.

P made strong showing of minimum contacts needed to support jurisdiction in Cal. over German former employee and D did not then meet his burden of proving jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

California court couldn’t exercise personal jurisdiction over Colorado resident posting messages on Yahoo! about out-of-state company’s NASDAQ-traded stock.

Cal. may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state law firm which used atty licensed to practice here who performed legal services governed by Cal. law for Cal. residents before Cal. courts.

Plaintiff failed to prove specific activity of D parent corp., done in context of parent- subsidiary relationship, justified exercise of specific jurisdiction over parent by forum.

Mexican ins. co. did not have requisite minimum contacts with California for assertion of specific jurisdiction.

Trial ct. correctly granted motion to quash summons for lack of personal jurisdiction where foreign company had no minimum contacts with Cal. and did not solicit business here.

Tex. health center's initial contract with Cal. doctor did not show purposeful availment where all future consequences of K in Tex., & case involved breach of later K not arising out of Cal. recruitment.

Ore. lawyer on Ore. case for Ore. corp. not subject to personal jurisdiction in Cal. simply because he had license to practice law in Cal., which he had not used in 14 yrs.

Mere fact that Hawaiian attorney came to Cal., made phone calls, wrote letters to and from state and accepted payment from Cal. client, does not establish purposeful availment.

Even if acts and omissions of Ds in sending elderly woman to brother in Cal. were wrongful or fraudulent, they would not permit Cal. court to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident Ds.

Burden on P to establish facts of jurisdiction by preponderance of evidence; critical inquiry is character of D's activities within forum state.

Cross-Complainant did not meet burden of proving Cal. court had jurisdiction over English company where no evidence presented Cross-D had ••any•• contacts with Cal.