California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Table of Contents

Standard of Review

STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR QUESTIONS OF

JURISDICTION; JUDICIAL NOTICE

 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

            Due process allows state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who were served with process elsewhere only if those defendants have such minimum contacts with the state to ensure that such an assertion of jurisdiction will not violate " ' "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ' "  (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434, 444-445, 474-475.)  It is well-established that only " ' "random," ' ' "fortuitous," ' or ' "attenuated" ' contacts" ' " do not support an exercise of personal jurisdiction.  (Id. at p. 445.)  In analyzing such issues, the courts have rejected any use of " 'talismanic jurisdictional formulas.' "  (Id. at p. 460.)  Rather, " ' "the facts of each case must [always] be weighed" ' in determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with ' "fair play and substantial justice." '  [Citation.]"  (Ibid.)

            When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 533.)  This may be done through presentation of declarations, with opposing declarations received in response.  " '[W]here there is a conflict in the declarations, resolution of the conflict by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal if the determination of that court is supported by substantial evidence.  [Citations.]'  [Citation.]"  (Ibid.)

            "On review, the question of jurisdiction is, in essence, one of law. When the facts giving rise to jurisdiction are conflicting, the trial court's factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence.  [Citation.]  Even then, we review independently the trial court's conclusions as to the legal significance of the facts.  [Citations.]  When the jurisdictional facts are not in dispute, the question of whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction is purely a legal question that we review de novo.  [Citation.]"  (Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 (Dorel); Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.)  The ultimate issue of whether an exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable is a legal determination subject to de novo review on appeal.  (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 111 (Automobile Antitrust).)

            In resolving the legal questions presented, we must also evaluate the state of the record in light of the trial court's judicial notice rulings.  "Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters [citation], only relevant material may be noticed.  'But judicial notice, since it is a substitute for proof [citation], is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.'  [Citation.]"  (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 (Mangini).)  Further, when a court takes judicial notice of official acts or public records, it does not also judicially notice " 'the truth of all matters stated therein.'  [Citations.]  '[T]he taking of judicial notice of the official acts of a governmental entity does not in and of itself require acceptance of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced therefrom, since in many instances what is being noticed, and thereby established, is no more than the existence of such acts and not, without supporting evidence, what might factually be associated with or flow therefrom.'  [Citation.]"  (Id. at pp. 1063-1064.)  The Supreme Court has clarified these standards as follows:  "When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.  [Citation.]"  (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).)

            When a trial court's judicial notice rulings are challenged, harmless error standards should apply:  "The Evidence Code declares the party's right and the trial judge's duty, but does not deal with the problems of appellate review and reversible error.  Hence, even though the matter called for compulsory notice, or was appropriate for optional notice, and the appellant fully complied with the procedural requirements, refusal to take notice is merely error.  Whether it is reversible error depends on the state of the record, and also involves considerations of estoppel and waiver.  [Citations.]  Likewise, the improper taking of notice is subject to harmless error analysis.  [Citation.]"  (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Judicial Notice, § 44, p. 137.)

            Before looking to the record, we first set forth the rules regarding minimum contacts as bases for findings of general or specific jurisdiction.

Aquila v. Sup. Ct. D048963 3/13/07 CA4/1
Aquila v. Sup. Ct. D048963 3/13/07 CA4/1-PDF

California Code of Civil Procedure-§
California Code of Civil Procedure-§
California Code of Civil Procedure-§
California Code of Civil Procedure-§

 

California Appeals
Code Provisions
Rules of Court
Statutory Construction
Standard of Review

California Code of Civil Procedure-§