Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Personal Jurisdiction

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), the federal courts could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Czech companies that hosted child porn videos in violaiton of federal criminal statutes that gave the porn victims private rights of action against those profiting from the child porn.  Under the Calder test, there was sufficient evidence that the companies targeted the US and profited… Read More

Defendant operates a web-based payment processing platform offered to merchants nationwide.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated California's privacy laws by retaining customers' personal data obtained from the merchants and tracking the customers.  This decision holds that defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not target its activity to California or its consumers but operated its… Read More

In this action, plaintiff sought a declaration that its use of the trademark "Impossible" in connection with its food products didn't infringe upon defendant's federal trademark of the same word.  By a split decision, the 9th Circuit held that California could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a one-man LLC that for two years operated primarily from San Diego before… Read More

Herbal sued defendant for Lanham Act violations, an intentional tort.  Accordingly, the court applied the Calder effects test to determine whether Arizona could assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  Defendants purposefully directed their tortious activities toward Arizona by selling to Arizona residents on an interactive website.  The alleged harm arose from those sales, among others.  And Herbal's pre-suit cease-and-desist letters… Read More

A corporation that is incorporated elsewhere but has registered to do business in a state that requires as a condition of that registration that the corporation appoint an in-state agent for service of process is subject to general personal jurisdiction in that state's courts on all causes of action.  Such forced consent to general personal jurisdiction does not offend the… Read More

Idaho lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, a British company.  There was no general jurisdiction.  Examining both the effects and the purpose availment tests, the court found the effects test couldn't be met because the plaintiffs, Indiana and Louisiana residents, suffered no injury in Idaho, the forum state.  Defendant's long-term contract with the defendant, which was an Idaho company, was insufficient… Read More

The probate exception to federal court jurisdiction applies only  to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.”  Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252… Read More

This decision affirms an order quashing service of summons on defendant FCCC for lack of personal jurisdiction.  FCCC is not subject to general jurisdiction in California as it is incorporated in Delaware and principally located in South Carolina.  It built the chassis for a bus that Champion Bus manufactured in Michigan.  The bus was involved in an accident in California. … Read More

(Under FRCivP 4(k)(2), a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant on a federal claim if the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state's courts and exercising jurisdiction over the defendant comports with due process considering his contacts with the US as a whole.  Here, the district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over the foreign… Read More

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), a plaintiff may establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant by (a) alleging a federal law claim against the defendant, (b) showing that the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state, and (c) showing that exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with due process, considering the defendant's contacts with… Read More

Arizona had personal jurisdiction over Pennsylvania Byzantime Catholic church officials whom plaintiff claimed had defamed it and interfered with plaintiff's contract with an Arizona Byzantine Catholic church.  Under Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984), a defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction if he (1) commits an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, that (3)… Read More

The trial court erred in vacating entry of judgment in California on a sister state judgment rendered in Missouri where plaintiffs lived.  Missouri had personal jurisdiction over the California defendants since they had sent allegedly fraudulent communications to plaintiffs in Missouri, inducing the Missouri plaintiffs to enter into a contract for defendants' adoption services and pay defendants from Missouri.  An… Read More

Relying heavily on Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, this decision holds that a South Korean parent corporation is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California based on activities its California subsidiary took in California in what the complaint charged was an antitrust conspiracy to fix spot market prices of fuel in California.  For personal… Read More

Arizona lacked personal jurisdiction over Continental (which built the airplane engine) and Textron (which acquired some assets of the plane's manufacturer) in a products liability suit by the plane's owner who had survived a crash alleged caused to defects in the engine.  Neither defendant was subject to general jurisdiction in Arizona.  Continental had not purposefully availed itself of Arizona's privileges. … Read More

Plaintiff and defendant were a married couple living in Georgia.  While on a visit to California, husband assaulted and battered wife.  The requirements for California to exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant are satisfied when the defendant travels to California and commits a tort while in California--if the suit arises from that tort. California has an interest in deterring… Read More

Defendant was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California though he was not an officer of dmarcian USA and demarcian EU, for which he worked, was a separate entity.  By publicly presenting himself as a leader of dmarcian, a company headquartered in California, having dmarcian EU’s web address automatically route to dmarcian’s Web site, administered in California, and receiving prospective… Read More

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), when the plaintiff sues on a federal cause of action and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction, the federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it has minimum contacts with the United States as a whole under the same generally applicable tests… Read More

California could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Virginia law firm and its lawyers.  The lawyers had done nothing to avail themselves of California's benefits.  They had a website with minimum interactivity not directed to California residents in particular but rather to veterans throughout the country.  The lawyers had Virginia bar licenses, not California ones.  Though plaintiff (their client)… Read More

1 2