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.

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

California has jurisdiction over the mother, her brother, and her daughters, all of whom now live in other states, in a suit filed by the son challenging actions taken by the others in connection with the family trust.  Mother and trust had deep California roots.  She lived in Santa Monica until 2016 and formed the trust there.  In 2016, the… Read More

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

1 2