Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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.

Connecticut-resident defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California in this paternity action, because although defendant knew that plaintiff resided in California and would likely have the child here, those contacts of the plaintiff cannot be attributed to the defendant. Read More

By committing an intentional tort in the state, a person purposely directs his actions toward the state, subjecting himself to personal jurisdiction there, unless the state’s exercise of jurisdiction over him does not comport with fair play and substantial justice under the seven-factor Paccar test. Read More

A Georgia-resident husband who sent a video of a mock suicide to his California-resident wife caused exceptional and specially regulated effects in California sufficient to support specific jurisdiction to enter a Domestic Violence Protection Act injunction against the husband. Read More

Montana cannot exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant railroad that is incorporated and has a principal place of business in another state, and so cannot adjudicate claims against the railroad arising from transactions or events outside Montana, even though the railroad maintains 2,000 miles of track and has 2,000 employees in Montana.  Read More

Although a subsidiary's contacts cannot by themselves give rise to general personal jurisdiction over the parent company under an agency theory, the subsidiary's contacts might suffice if parent and subsidiary were alter egos; but in this case, plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting an alter ego relationship, so personal jurisdiction did not attach Read More

In a suit by a California resident against a Texas company that refurbished cellphones, the state of California lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because, although the Texas company was owned by a California corporation with overlapping executive personnel, there was insufficient evidence that the Texas company was the California parent's agent or that it purposefully directed its injurious activities… Read More

Defendant corporation was subject to specific (though not general) personal jurisdiction in California, since it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to be California residents or to have claims that arise directly out of defendants' California-related activities in order for their claims to “arise out of or be related to” the defendant’s forum-directed activities.  Read More

Defendant’s concurrent filing of an Anti-SLAPP motion with his motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction does not constitute a general appearance waiving the jurisdictional argument.  Read More