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
In a case with facts closely similar to Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, the court follows that decision in holding that Daimler was subject to personal jurisdiction in California even though Daimler had not sold the truck involved in the accident in this state nor did the accident occur here. Daimler purposefully… 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
On a discretionary appeal from a class certification order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to review any issue bound up with the decision to certify the class. Thus, in this case, on a 23(f) appeal from an order certifying two nationwide TCPA classes, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to consider whether the… Read More
