Personal Jurisdiction

Question 1

Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

Answer 1

Many non-resident Plaintiff’s brought products liability suit in CA against drug manufacturer. Defendant sold 187 million pills in CA alone, but this is not connected to nonresidents’ claims. Defendant filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CA SC uses a “sliding scale” approach: D has wide ranging contacts with CA and non-resident claims were similar to CA resident claims. SCOTUS rejects this (too closely resembles GJ)

No adequate link between the state and non-resident claim identified:

 - Nonresidents were not prescribed Plavix in California, 
 - Nonresidents did not purchase Plavix in California, 
 - Nonresidents did not ingest Plavix in California, and were not injured by Plavix in California.

What is needed is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. The fact that other plaintiffs experienced the same injuries is not enough for specific jurisdiction

Question 2

Zehia v. Superior Court

Answer 2

D created a fake account online and targeted a CA resident. The claim here arises from that activity, which created a substantial connection between D and CA sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction:

1) D transmitted the harassing statements directly to a CA resident and the allegedly fabricated conversations directly to another CA resident with knowledge the recipients were California residents.
2) The reputation based “effects” of the alleged defamation connected D to CA. The reputational injury occurred only when the defamatory statements were transmitted to California residents. (Connects D to CA, not just the person)
3) The defamatory conversations had a distinct California focus (e.g. talking about ruining the reputation of a CA resident, talking about a meeting that occurred in CA). Defamatory content with a forum-related focus strengthens the connection between a nonresident tortfeasor’s conduct and the forum.

Question 3

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Answer 3

D produces and sells natural gas, and extracted some of its gas from leased real property in 11 states.

Ps were from all over the country, and sued D in one state, but P didn’t do business with all of them in one state.
- THE COURT FOUND THERE WAS PJ

Look like the Bristol Meyers Case, but different outcome (there is PJ here)

Phillips Petroleum should have argued that there were no relationship between the Plaintiff’s claims and D’s contacts with the forum state, although the court would have jurisdiction over claims from Plaintiffs from D’s state

PJ is a motion given ONLY to D

Question 4

Challenging Personal Jurisdiction (State v. Federal)

Answer 4

In Federal Courts, you may challenge PJ on appeal after final judgement (i.e., you can wait)

In CA, you cannot wait. The order must be immediately challenged by writ of mandate [418.10(c)]

Question 5

What do CA courts typically require for Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 5

1) Long Arm Statute
“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
Satisfying 1) minimum contacts and 2) reasonableness satisfies due process and thus satisfies the statute.

2. Meaningful Contacts
   a. Specific Jurisdiction (Plaintiff’s claim arises from or relates to Defendant’s contacts with the forum)
   b. General Jurisdiction (Defendant is so present in the forum that Defendant can be sued for any claim in the forum; looks like domicile. (satisfies reasonableness automatically).
   ALSO THINK: Purposeful Availment
3. Reasonableness
   a. P’s interest, D’s burden, interest of the forum state, interest of the judicial system as a whole

Question 6

When can a court exercise Specific Jurisdiction over a Non-Resident Defendant?

Answer 6

SJ Over a Non-Resident Defendant:

1) D Purposefully Availed themselves of forum benefits? (EFFECTS TEST)
2) Controversy arises out of D’s contacts with the Forum?
3) PJ/SJ is fair

Question 7

What happens when a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds?

Answer 7

P has the initial burden: they must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that CA may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.

If they meet this burden, then D has the burden of demonstrating ‘that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

Question 8

What is the “Effects Test”?

Answer 8

There is PJ over an out-of-state Defendant if they commit:
1) An intentional tort

2) Expressly aimed at the forum state
3) With D’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum state.

e. g., posting something tortious online probably doesn’t count:
- It is publicly available in ANY forum
- Would need evidence to suggest that the website “targeted California” or that “any California resident ever visited” the website or downloaded the proprietary material.

This test can be used to find PJ over an out-of-state D

Question 9

When can you file a motion challenging Personal Jurisdiction?

Answer 9

CA: Must be filed immediate by writ of mandate
Federal: Can challenge on appeal after final judgement

Question 10

General Jurisdiction v. Specific Jurisdiction

Answer 10

General jurisdiction: the forum is an “individual’s
domicile, or, for corporations, an equivalent place in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.

Specific jurisdiction: requires the suit to arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.

Question 11

Purposeful Availment

Answer 11

D can purposefully avail themselves of the forum by:

• Doing business (selling goods in the forum)
• Using healthcare system, school system etc.
• Typically, it is related to business, but can be broader

If D has purposefully availed themselves of the forum, they may reasonably expect to be sued in that forum

This is a type of meaningful connection, but it is not necessary for Personal Jurisdiction analysis. SUFFICIENT not NECESSARY