relatedness requirement in California

2020(Cf. Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th p. 1070 [plaintiff who filed lawsuit based on defendant hotels’ failure to provide notice of energy surcharges during reservation process and in their advertising met the relatedness requirement as “the injury allegedly suffered by plaintiff in this case relates directly to the content of defendants’ advertising in California;” italics in original].) The fact that TAW resold Brembo products in California for millions of dollars and therefore the termination could have an effect on TAW in California “does not establish the requisite connection between [Brembo,] t

2016Accordingly, we will examine here all three factors relevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis. 17 the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable‖].) Our courts have also explained that the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction is determined under the ― ‗substantial connection‘ test,‖ which ―is satisfied if ‗there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant‘s forum activities and the plaintiff‘s claim.‘ [Citation.]‖ (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1068 .) This test requires courts to evaluate the nature of the defendant‘s activ

2014After analyzing the language in which the high court described the doctrine, the Vons court considered and rejected several tests proffered by the parties. ( Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 453-455.) It held that the so-called proximate cause test, is too narrow, the “ ‘but for’ ” test is too broad and amorphous, and the “substantive relevance test” has an “overly restrictive view of the interest of the state in providing a judicial forum and 24 redress to its residents.” (Id. at p. 475.)14 Instead, the Vons court adopted the “substantial connection” test, under which the relatedness requiremen

2005Following a detailed discussion of the relevant law and policy considerations, we also rejected the “substantive relevance” test proposed by Professor Brilmayer. 9 (Id. at pp. 469-474.) Instead, we adopted a “substantial connection” test and held that the relatedness requirement is satisfied if “there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim.” (Id. at p. 456.) In adopting this test, we observed that “for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction the intensity of forum contacts and the connection of the claim to those contacts are in

2016As we explained: “The Currie Medical court, finding guidance in federal decisions construing the compulsory counterclaim statute, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 13(a) . . . , held that the relatedness standard ‘requires “not an absolute identity of factual backgrounds for the two claims, but only a logical relationship between them.” [Citation.] This logical relationship approach is the majority rule among the federal courts [citation].’ ” (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 ] (Align Technology), quoting Currie Medical, supra, at p. 777

2016As we explained: “The Currie Medical court, finding guidance in federal decisions construing the compulsory counterclaim statute, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 13(a) . . . , held that the relatedness standard ‘requires “not an absolute identity of factual backgrounds for the two claims, but only a logical relationship between them.” [Citation.] This logical relationship approach is the majority rule among the federal courts [citation].’ ” (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 343 ] (Align Technology), quoting Currie Medical, supra, at p. 777

2016(Cf. Align Technology, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp. 949, 962-963, 967-968 [plaintiff’s breach of contract and conversion claims against former employee were logically related to latter’s cross-complaint in prior wrongful termination action]; Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 338 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 703 ] [counterclaim held compulsory because it and prior claim arose out of same fiduciary relationship between the parties].) Therefore, although we construe the relatedness requirement of section 426.30(a) broadly to effectuate its purpose to avoid a multipl

2016(Cf. Align Technology, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp. 949, 962-963, 967-968 [plaintiff’s breach of contract and conversion claims against former employee were logically related to latter’s cross-complaint in prior wrongful termination action]; Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 338 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 703 ] [counterclaim held compulsory because it and prior claim arose out of same fiduciary relationship between the parties].) Therefore, although we construe the relatedness requirement of section 426.30(a) broadly to effectuate its purpose to avoid a multipl

2016(Id. at pp. 801-802, 805-806.) In Bristol-Myers, BMS’s forum contacts unquestionably satisfied the purposeful availment requirement (which BMS did not contest), as it had extensive business contacts in California, including substantial pharmaceutical sales, research facilities and hundreds of employees. ( Bristol-Myers, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 801-802.) Generally, the purposeful availment requirement is “ ‘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

2015Clark’s communications with Moncrief were purposely and voluntarily directed toward California “ ‘so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receive[d], to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on’ his contacts with the forum. [Citation.]” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269 .) Relatedness Relatedness concerns “whether the controversy is related to or arises out of defendants’ contacts with California.” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1067 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 , 112 P.3d 28 ] (Snowney).) The relatedness requirement is determined under the “

2014(Schwarzer et al., Cal Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 3:136.) However, California has rejected the “but for” test, which would substantially expand the scope of limited jurisdiction, in favor of a “substantial connection” test, holding “that the relatedness requirement is satisfied if ‘there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim.’ [Citation.]” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1068 ; accord, Roman, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 680 .) In Roman, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 670 , the Court of Appeal agree

2014The California Supreme Court adopted a “substantial connection” test and held the relatedness requirement is satisfied if “‘there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim.’” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1068 .) “‘[F]or the purpose of establishing jurisdiction the intensity of forum contacts and the connection of the claim to those contacts are inversely related.’” (Ibid.) “‘[T]he more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts and the claim.’ [Citation.] . . .

2021(Just consider all our descriptions of Ford’s activities outside its home bases.) So we agree with the plaintiffs’ counsel that resolving these cases does not also resolve the hypothetical.[13] See id., at 39–40.” (Ford Motor Co., supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1028, fn. 4 .) In their concurring opinion, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas expressed concern that the majority had adopted a more flexible, but not well-defined, approach to the relatedness requirement.

2021(Ford Motor Co., supra, 141 S.Ct. at p. 1034 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch J.).) What is of interest here, however, is 13 The high court was no doubt aware that a number of federal and state courts have considered specific personal jurisdiction predicated on sales through eBay or similar internet platforms.

2021(Friends of the Trails v. Blasius (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 810, 838 .) And “[a]lthough it may be difficult to apportion recoverable attorney work and non-recoverable attorney work, the inherent difficulty of this relatedness analysis is not a basis upon which a . . . court may deny an award of attorney[] fees.” (Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (9th Cir. 2011) 656 F.3d 877, 892, fn. 11 .) Thus, on remand, if the court determines that the requirements of section 1021.5 have been met, it must award fees.

2016(Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 , 112 P.3d 28 ] (Snowney); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ] (Burger King) [“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”].) Our courts have also explained that the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction is determined under the “ ‘substantial c

2016(Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 , 112 P.3d 28 ] (Snowney); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ] (Burger King) [“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”].) Our courts have also explained that the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction is determined under the “ ‘substantial c

2016The court in Helicópteros slightly reformulated the requirement: jurisdiction may be appropriate if the controversy “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to” the company’s forum contacts. ( Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414.) But the high court did not explain or apply that standard in Helicópteros, and in Goodyear, supra, 564 U.S. at page 919, the court again used a different formulation, suggesting a narrower vision of relatedness: “Specific jurisdiction . . . depends on an ‘affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy,’ principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place

2016Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [specific jurisdiction in California courts proper where action was based on a life insurance contract delivered in California and on which the insured, a California resident at his death, had paid premiums from the state].) Nothing in the high court‘s specific jurisdiction decisions suggests an abandonment or broad relaxation of the relatedness requirement.

2016Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ] [specific jurisdiction in California courts proper where action was based on a life insurance contract delivered in California and on which the insured, a California resident at his death, had paid premiums from the state].) Nothing in the high court’s specific jurisdiction decisions suggests an abandonment or broad relaxation of the relatedness requirement.

2016In Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.___, ___ [ 187 L.Ed.2d 624 , ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751 ], the United States Supreme Court made clear that general jurisdiction—jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies unrelated to the defendant‘s forum contacts—is not created merely by commercial contacts that are ―continuous and systematic‖ 4 (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 416 ) but only by contacts so extensive as to render the defendant ― ‗at home‘ ‖ in the forum state.

2016In Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117 , _ [ 187 L.Ed.2d 624, 630 , 134 S.Ct. 746, 751 ], the United States Supreme Court made clear that general jurisdiction—jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies unrelated to the defendant’s forum contacts—is not created merely by commercial contacts that are “continuous and systematic” ( Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 416) but only by contacts so extensive as to render the defendant “ ‘at home’ ” in the forum state. ( Daimler, supra, 571 U.S. at p. _ [187 L.Ed.2d at p. 761].) The majority applies that holding to conclude, correctly, that general

2016In Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.___, ___ [ 187 L.Ed.2d 624 , ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751 ], the United States Supreme Court made clear that general jurisdiction—jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies unrelated to the defendant‘s forum contacts—is not created merely by commercial contacts that are ―continuous and systematic‖ 4 (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 416 ) but only by contacts so extensive as to render the defendant ― ‗at home‘ ‖ in the forum state.

2016In Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.___, ___ [ 187 L.Ed.2d 624 , ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751 ], the United States Supreme Court made clear that general jurisdiction—jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies unrelated to the defendant‘s forum contacts—is not created merely by commercial contacts that are ―continuous and systematic‖ 4 (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 416 ) but only by contacts so extensive as to render the defendant ― ‗at home‘ ‖ in the forum state.

2009Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 699 ].) Few California cases have interpreted the relatedness requirement of section 426.30.

2009Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 699 ].) Few California cases have interpreted the relatedness requirement of section 426.30.