crucial defense in California

2018Counsel’s Duty to Investigate Here, the trial court accepted Bilbrey’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate Bilbrey’s possible mental state defenses. “ ‘It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if [his or her] failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he was entitled.’ ” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , quoting People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 , abrogated on other grounds by Peop

2018Counsel’s Duty to Investigate Here, the trial court accepted Bilbrey’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate Bilbrey’s possible mental state defenses. “ ‘It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if [his or her] failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he was entitled.’ ” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , quoting People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 , abrogated on other grounds by Peop

1979(Id., at p. 389; accord People v. McDowell (1968) 69 Cal.2d 737, 741, fn. 1 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 447 P.2d 97 ].) Our McDowell decision is close on point, for there we held that retained counsel rendered ineffective representation in failing to research and develop a diminished capacity defense, with the result that defendant was deprived of a crucial defense at trial.

1979(Id., at p. 389; accord People v. McDowell (1968) 69 Cal.2d 737, 741, fn. 1 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 447 P.2d 97 ].) Our McDowell decision is close on point, for there we held that retained counsel rendered ineffective representation in failing to research and develop a diminished capacity defense, with the result that defendant was deprived of a crucial defense at trial.

2021“Before entering his plea, [a defendant is] ‘entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea should be entered.’ [Citation.] The attorney’s role in investigating the facts and researching the applicable law prior to advising the petitioner to plead becomes particularly important because of 9 the serious consequences of a guilty plea. [Citations.]” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , fn. omitted.) “If counsel’s ‘failure (to undertake such careful inquiries

2018Counsel’s Duty to Investigate Here, the trial court accepted Bilbrey’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate Bilbrey’s possible mental state defenses. “ ‘It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if [his or her] failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he was entitled.’ ” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , quoting People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 , abrogated on other grounds by Peop

2026“If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” ’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 845-846.) “Counsel’s first duty is to investigate the facts of his client’s case and to research the law applicable to those facts.” (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 222 .) “Criminal defense counsel has the duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available

2021“Before entering his plea, [a defendant is] ‘entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea should be entered.’ [Citation.] The attorney’s role in investigating the facts and researching the applicable law prior to advising the petitioner to plead becomes particularly important because of 9 the serious consequences of a guilty plea. [Citations.]” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , fn. omitted.) “If counsel’s ‘failure (to undertake such careful inquiries

2018Counsel’s Duty to Investigate Here, the trial court accepted Bilbrey’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate Bilbrey’s possible mental state defenses. “ ‘It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if [his or her] failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he was entitled.’ ” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , quoting People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 , abrogated on other grounds by Peop

2018Counsel’s Duty to Investigate Here, the trial court accepted Bilbrey’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate Bilbrey’s possible mental state defenses. “ ‘It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if [his or her] failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he was entitled.’ ” (In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 175 , quoting People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 , abrogated on other grounds by Peop

1972We have concluded, however, that omission of the instructions was not prejudicial and it cannot be said that the trial was reduced to a sham or a farce or that a crucial defense was withdrawn. ( People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 689 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464-466 [ 34 Cal. Rptr. 863 , *457 386 P.2d 487 ]; People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 790-791 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) Defendant contends that his representation by counsel at trial was inadequate.

1972We have concluded, however, that omission of the instructions was not prejudicial and it cannot be said that the trial was reduced to a sham or a farce or that a crucial defense was withdrawn. ( People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 689 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464-466 [ 34 Cal. Rptr. 863 , *457 386 P.2d 487 ]; People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 790-791 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) Defendant contends that his representation by counsel at trial was inadequate.

2016(See, e.g., People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 219 [“Counsel's decision to so argue ‘is a matter of trial tactics and strategy that a reviewing court generally may not second- guess.’”]; cf. People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [“withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, reducing the trial to a farce or sham” amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution].) Defense counsel here acknowledged that the issue of intent to kill was “not a big part of [his] argument” and that “the whole basis of [his] closing argument . . . wa

1977Defendant thus waived the claimed error. ( People v. Hoiland (1971) 22 Cal. App.3d 530, 541 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 523 ]; People v. Hawkins (1970) 7 Cal. App.3d 117 , 124 *691 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 428 ].) Nor does the record show that defense counsel failed to make the objection because of lack of awareness of the facts or the law, or that such omission resulted in withdrawal of a crucial defense. ( People v. Jenkins (1975) 13 Cal.3d 749, 753-755 [ 119 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 532 P.2d 857 ]; People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516-517 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ].) Moreover, defendant cites no author

1978(People v. Harris (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 978 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) However, even though defendant Cervantes represented himself during the proceedings if we, arguendo, afforded him a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal we could not say after having reviewed the entire record that the proceedings were reduced to “a farce and a sham” (People v. Ibarra, supra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 466); that he was deprived of a crucial defense (People v. Williams (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 970, 979 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 292 ]; or that the record demonstrates as a reality, as opposed to a matter of speculation, tha

1978(People v. Harris (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 978 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].) However, even though defendant Cervantes represented himself during the proceedings if we, arguendo, afforded him a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal we could not say after having reviewed the entire record that the proceedings were reduced to “a farce and a sham” (People v. Ibarra, supra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 466); that he was deprived of a crucial defense (People v. Williams (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 970, 979 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 292 ]; or that the record demonstrates as a reality, as opposed to a matter of speculation, tha

2023Thus, as the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend.[fn] The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” ( Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.

2014In doing so, the court extensively reviewed pertinent California and federal cases and summarized the test for specific jurisdiction as follows: “ ‘The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.’ ” ( Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 452-453, quoting Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 148 (Cornelison).) The court adopted this “substantial connection” test

2025Permanent nuisances generally have been found when a structure is involved, “such as a building encroaching upon the plaintiff’s land.” (Baker, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 869 .) Continuing nuisances historically involved “an ongoing . . . disturbance, . . . caused by noise, vibration or foul odor” but “more substantial physical invasions of land have been held to be continuing in character.” (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1146 (Mangini I).) Moreover, the continuing nature of a nuisance “refers to the continuing damage caused by the offensive condition, not to the act

2010(Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1143 .) The court stated that the allegations of the complaint met “the crucial test of a continuing nuisance: that the offensive condition is abatable.” (Id. at p. 1147.) Because the defendant’s alleged conduct ended years prior to the filing of the complaint, the court went on to say, “We note plaintiffs’ land may be subject to a continuing nuisance even though defendant’s offensive conduct ended *1490 years ago.

1979A crucial defense is not necessarily one which, if presented, “would result inexorably in a defendant’s acquittal.” (People v. Rodriguez (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1028 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 118 ]; accord People v. Shells (1971) 4 Cal.3d 626, 631 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 275 , 483 P.2d 1227 ].) Ibarra itself teaches that by failing to obtain an adjudication of the stronger of two potential defenses, trial counsel deprived his client of constitutionally adequate assistance. (60 Cal.2d at pp. 465-466.) It has been said that an appellant must prove inadequate assistance as “a demonstrable reality and not a specu

1979A crucial defense is not necessarily one which, if presented, “would result inexorably in a defendant’s acquittal.” (People v. Rodriguez (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1028 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 118 ]; accord People v. Shells (1971) 4 Cal.3d 626, 631 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 275 , 483 P.2d 1227 ].) Ibarra itself teaches that by failing to obtain an adjudication of the stronger of two potential defenses, trial counsel deprived his client of constitutionally adequate assistance. (60 Cal.2d at pp. 465-466.) It has been said that an appellant must prove inadequate assistance as “a demonstrable reality and not a specu

1977He must show that such acts or omissions resulted in withdrawal of a crucial defense from the case.” ( Hill, supra, *1029 70 Cal.2d 678, 689 .) (Italics added.) The Hill court did not use the term, “conclusive defense,” found in Kirchner , but rather, the term, “crucial defense,” found in Ibarra .

1974It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if his failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled (Pe ople v. Najera, 8 Cal.3d 504, 516 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d *869 1353]; People v. Hill, 70 Cal.2d 678, 689 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. McDowell, 69 Cal.2d 737, 746 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 447 P.2d 97 ]; People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 ]).

1974If counsel’s ‘failure [to undertake such careful inquiries and investigations] results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled.’ [Citations.]” (In re Saunders, supra, 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1041-1042 .) Although “[t]he decision to plead guilty or not guilty was for [defendant] to make” (In re Beaty, supra, 64 Cal.2d 760, 765 ; see also § 1018), he was “ ‘entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what pl

1974If counsel's `failure [to undertake such careful inquiries and investigations] results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled.' [Citations.]" ( In re Saunders, supra, 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1041-1042 .) (11) Although "[t]he decision to plead guilty or not guilty was for [defendant] to make" ( In re Beaty, supra, 64 Cal.2d 760, 765 ; see also § 1018), he was "`entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination *612 of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as

1996Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ]; and Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 ].) B Applying the teaching of Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462 , and Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 , we must determine whether the courts of *449 this state properly may exercise specific jurisdiction over Seabest and WRMI.

1996Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ]; and Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 ].) B Applying the teaching of Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462 , and Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 , we must determine whether the courts of *449 this state properly may exercise specific jurisdiction over Seabest and WRMI.

1996The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” (Id. at pp. 147-148, fn. omitted, italics added, citing Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250-253 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1295-1298 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 ]; McGee v. International Life Ins.

1996The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” (Id. at pp. 147-148, fn. omitted, italics added, citing Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250-253 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1295-1298 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 ]; McGee v. International Life Ins.

1978Under these circumstances, we cannot but conclude that trial counsel’s failure to raise any of the mental condition defenses was the result either of ignorance of the law or was a deliberate intentional withholding of a crucial defense rather than any informed trial tactics or strategy (cf. People v. McDowell, supra, 69 Cal.2d 737, 750; People v. Welborn, supra, 257 Cal.App.2d 513, 522 ).

1976(See People v. Williams, supra, 2 Cal.3d 894, 904-905 ; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d 694, 704-705 ; People v. Gibson, supra, 56 Cal.App.3d 119, 134 ; and People v. Doebke, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 931, 938-939 .) B “It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if his failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled. [Citations.]” (People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 ], See also *32 People v.

1978If counsel’s failure to undertake such careful inquiries and investigations of the facts or law results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled (In re Saunders (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1041-1042 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 472 P.2d 921 ]; see also Brubaker v. Dickson, supra, 310 F.2d 30, 38-40 ; People v. *706 Ibarra, supra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 ; In re Williams, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 175 ).

1978If counsel’s failure to undertake such careful inquiries and investigations of the facts or law results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled (In re Saunders (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1041-1042 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 472 P.2d 921 ]; see also Brubaker v. Dickson, supra, 310 F.2d 30, 38-40 ; People v. *706 Ibarra, supra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 ; In re Williams, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 175 ).

2025While counsel’s argument regarding LaDavid’s specific testimony was brief, it “was not so lacking as to fall below the constitutional minimum.” (People v. Gamache, 19 supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 394 [rejecting defendant’s contention that defense counsel’s argument was overly brief and superficial]; see People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 634-635 [“The effectiveness of an advocate’s oral presentation is difficult to judge accurately from a written transcript, and the length of an argument is not a sound measure of its quality.”]; People v. Moore (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 51, 57 [“Reversals for ineffe

2025(Bell, at p. 111.) “Reversals for ineffective assistance of counsel during closing argument rarely occur; when they do, it is due to an argument against the client which concedes guilt, withdraws a crucial defense, or relies on an illegal defense.” (People v. Moore (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 51, 57 .) Shinaia’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective.

2022(Dec. 27, 2021).)5 We also ask too much of Quach by requiring him specifically to identify the motivation for Commerce Club’s lack of candor.6 (Berman v. Health Net (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1372 [“subjective bad faith is not a required element in a finding of waiver of the right to compel arbitration,” but merely “an alternative ground for finding waiver,” such that “the crucial inquiry is not [necessarily] the subjective motivation of the party seeking arbitration” (capitalization and italics omitted from first quotation)]; see Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at

2022(Dec. 27, 2021).)5 We also ask too much of Quach by requiring him specifically to identify the motivation for Commerce Club’s lack of candor.6 (Berman v. Health Net (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1372 [“subjective bad faith is not a required element in a finding of waiver of the right to compel arbitration,” but merely “an alternative ground for finding waiver,” such that “the crucial inquiry is not [necessarily] the subjective motivation of the party seeking arbitration” (capitalization and italics omitted from first quotation)]; see Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc., supra, 184 5 Judicial noti

2015Attorney Negligence “The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. [Citations.]” (Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 , superseded by statute on other grounds.) “In addressing breach of duty, ‘the crucial inquiry is whether [the atto

1998In Budd , the defendant attorney failed to allege a crucial defense in a third party's suit against the plaintiff and the corporation of which he was president. ( Budd, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 198, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 .) New counsel tried unsuccessfully to rectify the defendant's omission; the trial court entered judgment against the plaintiff personally. ( Id. at pp. 198-199, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 .) Budd said the facts presented after remand could demonstrate the plaintiff suffered damage when he paid the defendant attorney's fees, if the attorney's negligence caused thes

2009“In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; *357 (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 536 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 966 P.2d 983 ]; see also Lazy Acres Market, Inc. v. Tseng (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 ].) “In addressing brea

2009“In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; *357 (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 536 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 966 P.2d 983 ]; see also Lazy Acres Market, Inc. v. Tseng (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 ].) “In addressing brea

1974Counsel at Trial 9 The Solano County Superior Court found that petitioner “had a crucial defense [diminished capacity] available which was not presented on his behalf.” The diminished capacity concept, commonly known as the Wells-Gorshen rule (see People v. Morse, 70 Cal.2d 711, 731 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 452 P.2d 607 ]), was first fully recognized in People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330 [ 202 P.2d 53 ], which was filed in 1949.

1974If counsel's `failure [to undertake such careful inquiries and investigations] results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled.' [Citations.]" ( In re Saunders, supra, 2 Cal.3d 1033, 1041-1042 .) (11) Although "[t]he decision to plead guilty or not guilty was for [defendant] to make" ( In re Beaty, supra, 64 Cal.2d 760, 765 ; see also § 1018), he was "`entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination *612 of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as

1978The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” Limited jurisdiction depends upon an evaluation of three considerations: “(1) whether the cause of action ‘arises from’ or is otherwise ‘connected with’ defendant’s forum-related activities (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 899 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 ]); (2) the relative burdens

1978The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” Limited jurisdiction depends upon an evaluation of three considerations: “(1) whether the cause of action ‘arises from’ or is otherwise ‘connected with’ defendant’s forum-related activities (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 899 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 ]); (2) the relative burdens