During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

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.

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

California has specific personal jurisdiction over Avon in a suit brought by a Calfiornia resident who used Avon's talc products and claims they were defective, containing asbestos which gave her mesothelioma.  Plaintiff adequately alleged facts showing that Avon had purposefully availed itself of California's benefits and that those contacts were related to her suit by showing that she had purchased… Read More

Defendant sold goods through its Internet website.  It had no physical presence in California but 8 to 10 per cent of its sales were to California residents. That was sufficient availment of the benefits and protections of California law to satisfy due process, even though the defendant did not target California residents any more than residents of other states. Making… Read More

Following Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, this decision holds that the district court erred in judging specific personal jurisdiction on the particular transaction that gave rise to the lawsuit rather than on the whole business relationship between the parties, of which the particular transaction was a part.  Defendant was a Honduran company that imported into… Read More

The district court correctly dismissed this copyright infringement suit against the Polish owner of a Polish porn website for lack of personal jurisdiction.  To establish specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum or purposefully directed his activities to the forum,… Read More

Brembo, an Italian corporation, was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California in a suit by its distributor TAW, which though originally a California entity, had moved its principal place of business to North Carolina before entering into the distributorship agreement that was the subject of this suit.  The agreement authorized TAW to distribute Brembo products throughout the United States,… Read More

1 2 3