personal jurisdiction requirement in California

2003(Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 , 58 P.3d 2 ]; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 447; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 476 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ].) Consent may be a basis for personal jurisdiction. “[Bjecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a ‘variety of legal arrangements’ by which a litigant may give ‘express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.’ ” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 , fin. 14; see also National Equ

2003(Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 , 58 P.3d 2 ]; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 447; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 476 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ].) Consent may be a basis for personal jurisdiction. “[Bjecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a ‘variety of legal arrangements’ by which a litigant may give ‘express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.’ ” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 , fin. 14; see also National Equ

2025Principles Governing the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction California’s long-arm statute authorizes the courts of this state to exercise jurisdiction over a person on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of California or of the United States. (§ 410.10; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich).) The primary focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry is the relationship of the defendant to the forum state.

2021Proc., § 410.10; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich).) The primary focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry is the relationship of the defendant to the forum state.

2018"Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant." ( Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing (1999) 526 U.S. 344 , 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322 , 143 L.Ed.2d 448 .) "In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant." ( Ibid. ; see Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. (1987) 484 U.S. 97 , 104, 108 S.Ct. 404 , 98 L.Ed.2d 415 ; Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree (1946) 326 U.S. 438 ,

2018"Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant." ( Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing (1999) 526 U.S. 344 , 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322 , 143 L.Ed.2d 448 .) "In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant." ( Ibid. ; see Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. (1987) 484 U.S. 97 , 104, 108 S.Ct. 404 , 98 L.Ed.2d 415 ; Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree (1946) 326 U.S. 438 ,

2025(Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 582 U.S. 255, 262 .) A California court may only assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has “minimum contacts” with California such that the maintenance of the suit “does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444-445 .) “Minimum contacts exist where the defendant’s conduct in the forum state is such that he should reasonably anticipate being subject to suit there, and

2021(Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 582 U.S. ___ , 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779 (Bristol-Myers).) The “constitutional touchstone” of this inquiry is whether the defendant “purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 474 (Burger King).) 8 “Minimum contacts exist where the defendant’s conduct in the forum state is such that he should reasonably anticipate being subject to suit there, and it is reasonable and fair to force him to do so.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court

2021(See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125 , 139 [“‘a party may voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, or may, by failing to seasonably object thereto, waive his right to question jurisdiction over him’”]; Becerra, at p. 493 [“a person can become a party to an action, even if not named in the complaint, by appearing and participating without any objection by the other parties”]; Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 266 [“‘because the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, th

2021(See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125 , 139 [“‘a party may voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, or may, by failing to seasonably object thereto, waive his right to question jurisdiction over him’”]; Becerra, at p. 493 [“a person can become a party to an action, even if not named in the complaint, by appearing and participating without any objection by the other parties”]; Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 266 [“‘because the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, th

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2021(See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 678 [a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”]; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 3 [an “appellant may only complain of errors which injuriously affect her”]; Nichols v. Nichols (1933) 135 Cal.App. 488, 491 [an appellant cannot “urge errors which affect only his coparties who do not appeal, and such errors can be reviewed only at the instance of the parties affected thereby”]; see also Brenner v. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (20

2022As noted above, SK Trading participated in hiring Niemann as SK Energy’s trader on the California spot 3 As petitioner notes, in Bristol-Myers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at page 1781 , the Supreme Court disapproved the “sliding-scale” formulation of the “substantial connection” prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test previously applied by California courts.

2022As noted above, SK Trading participated in hiring Niemann as SK Energy’s trader on the California spot 3 As petitioner notes, in Bristol-Myers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at page 1781 , the Supreme Court disapproved the “sliding-scale” formulation of the “substantial connection” prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test previously applied by California courts.

2022“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [Citations.]” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 333 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 ].) The due process protections afforded to litigants through the personal jurisdiction requirement, and specifically the requisite “minimum contacts,” are intended to protect litigants from “the burdens of litigating in a 10 distant or inconvenient forum.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291-292 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 497-498 ].) Where, as here, a judgment debtor has

2022“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [Citations.]” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 333 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 ].) The due process protections afforded to litigants through the personal jurisdiction requirement, and specifically the requisite “minimum contacts,” are intended to protect litigants from “the burdens of litigating in a 10 distant or inconvenient forum.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291-292 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 497-498 ].) Where, as here, a judgment debtor has

2023The greys are dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable.’ Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 545 (1948).” (Kulko, supra, 436 U.S. at p. 92 .) But this case seems to us more monochromatic.

2022“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [Citations.]” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 333 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 ].) The due process protections afforded to litigants through the personal jurisdiction requirement, and specifically the requisite “minimum contacts,” are intended to protect litigants from “the burdens of litigating in a 10 distant or inconvenient forum.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291-292 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 497-498 ].) Where, as here, a judgment debtor has

2022“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [Citations.]” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 333 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 ].) The due process protections afforded to litigants through the personal jurisdiction requirement, and specifically the requisite “minimum contacts,” are intended to protect litigants from “the burdens of litigating in a 10 distant or inconvenient forum.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291-292 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 497-498 ].) Where, as here, a judgment debtor has

2003(Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 , 58 P.3d 2 ]; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 447; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 476 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ].) Consent may be a basis for personal jurisdiction. “[Bjecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a ‘variety of legal arrangements’ by which a litigant may give ‘express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.’ ” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 , fin. 14; see also National Equ

2003(Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 , 58 P.3d 2 ]; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 447; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 476 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ].) Consent may be a basis for personal jurisdiction. “[Bjecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a ‘variety of legal arrangements’ by which a litigant may give ‘express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.’ ” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 , fin. 14; see also National Equ

2003(Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449 ; DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 683 ].) The plaintiff must “ ‘present facts demonstrating that the conduct of defendants related to the pleaded causes is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.” [Citation.]’ ” (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091.) An unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in meeting the plaintiff’s burden of proving minimum contacts.

2003(Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449 ; DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 683 ].) The plaintiff must “ ‘present facts demonstrating that the conduct of defendants related to the pleaded causes is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.” [Citation.]’ ” (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091.) An unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in meeting the plaintiff’s burden of proving minimum contacts.