California
Appeals

Standard of Review - Jurisdiction-Motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction
 

DISCUSSION

            1.         Constitutional Limits on the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction

            A California court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent allowed under the state and federal Constitutions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)  The exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible only if the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state so that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’  [Citations.]”  (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 [90 L.Ed. 95] (Internat. Shoe); accord, Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich).)  In other words, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must be such that the defendant had “ ‘fair warning’ ” that its activities might subject it to personal jurisdiction in the state.  (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472 [85 L.Ed.2d 528] (Burger King); accord, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297 [62 L.Ed.2d 490].) 

            “In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’  [Citations.]”  (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788 [79 L.Ed.2d 804].)  “Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.”  (Id. at p. 790.)  “ ‘Great care and reserve should be exercised when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field.’ ”  (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 115 [94 L.Ed.2d 92] (Asahi).)

            A defendant that has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the forum state is subject to general jurisdiction in the state, meaning jurisdiction on any cause of action.  (Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445-446 [96 L.Ed. 485]; see Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445 (Vons).)  The Brars do not contend Petitioners are subject to general jurisdiction.  Instead, they contend and the court found that Petitioners are subject to specific jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction in an action arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.  (Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414, fn. 8 [80 L.Ed.2d 404]; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.)  Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant’s forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged.  (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147-148.)

            “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) ‘the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits’ [citation]; (2) ‘the “controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum” ’ [citation]; and (3) ‘ “the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice’ ” ’ [citation].”  (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.)  “ ‘The purposeful availment inquiry . . . focuses on the defendant’s intentionality.  [Citation.]  This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on’ his contacts with the forum.  [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)

            “[P]urposeful availment occurs where a nonresident defendant ‘ “purposefully direct[s]” [its] activities at residents of the forum’ (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472), ‘ “purposefully derive[s] benefit” from’ its activities in the forum (id. at p. 473), ‘create[s] a “substantial connection” with the forum” (id. at p. 475), ‘ “deliberately” has engaged in significant activities within’ the forum (id. at pp. 475-476), or ‘has created “continuing obligations” between [itself] and residents of the forum’ (id. at p. 476).  By limiting the scope of a forum’s jurisdiction in this manner, the ‘ “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts . . . . ’  (Id. at p. 475.)  Instead, the defendant will only be subject to personal jurisdiction if ‘ “it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the state.” ’ (Pavlovich, at p. 269, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, 444 U.S. at p. 297.)”  (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1063 (Snowney).)

            A controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s forum contacts, so as to satisfy the second requirement for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, if there is “a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim.”  (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 452.)  The forum contacts need not be the proximate cause or “but for” cause of the alleged injuries.  (Id. at pp. 462-467.)  The forum contacts also need not be “substantively relevant” to the cause of action, meaning those contacts need not establish or support an element of the cause of action.  (Id. at pp. 469‑475.)  “A claim need not arise directly from the defendant’s forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction.  Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident’s forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate.”  (Id. at p. 452.)  Accordingly, in evaluating the quality and nature of the defendant’s forum contacts, we consider not only the conduct directly affecting the plaintiff, but also the broader course of conduct of which it is a part.  (Cornelison v. Chaney, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 149.)

            In determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable, so as to satisfy the third requirement for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, a court must consider (1) the burden on the defendant of defending an action in the forum, (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief, (4) “ ‘the interstate [or international] judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,’ ” and (5) the states’ or nations’ shared interest “ ‘in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’ ”  (Asahi, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 113; see id. at p. 115.)  “These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.  [Citations.]  On the other hand, where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”[6]  (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 477.)

            The commission of a tortious act within the forum state ordinarily justifies the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in an action arising from the tortious act.  (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 535-536; Kaiser Aetna v. Deal (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 896, 901; see Rest.2d Conflict of Laws, § 36(1).)

 2.         Standard of Review

            A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction has the initial burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts establishing purposeful availment and a substantial connection between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim.  (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1062; DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090-1091.)  If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, that is, would not “comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice’ ” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 476).  (Snowney, supra, at p. 1062; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)  If there is no conflict in the evidence, the question whether a defendant’s contacts with California are sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this state is a question of law that we review de novo.  (Snowney, supra, at p. 1062.)  If there is a conflict in the evidence underlying that determination, we review the trial court’s express or implied factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.  (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)  Although the parties here dispute their opponents’ characterization of the facts, there is no material conflict in the evidence itself, so our review is de novo.[7]  (Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 199, 204.)Anglo Irish Bank v. Super. Ct. B206714, 8/4/08