minimum contacts test in California

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2026(Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich); see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351, 358 (Ford Motor Co.) [under International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 , 316-317 “a tribunal’s authority depends on the defendant’s having such ‘contacts’ with the forum State that ‘the maintenance of the suit’ is ‘reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,’ and ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justi

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2026(Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich); see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351, 358 (Ford Motor Co.) [under International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 , 316-317 “a tribunal’s authority depends on the defendant’s having such ‘contacts’ with the forum State that ‘the maintenance of the suit’ is ‘reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,’ and ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justi

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2025Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 .) Under the minimum contacts test, courts ask “whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92 .) There are “two types of personal jurisdiction: ‘general’ (sometimes called ‘all-purpose’) jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case-linked’) jurisdiction.” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

2023Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 .) Under the minimum contacts test, courts ask “whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to this code. 7 activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92 .) There are “two types of personal jurisdiction: ‘general’ (sometimes called ‘all-purpose’) jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2026Proc., § 410.10.)4 “A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test

2023(Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 474 , quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Jurisdiction is proper . . . where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Burger King, at p. 475.) “‘The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.’” (Id. at p. 474.) “Under the minimum contacts test, ‘an essential criterion in all cases is whether the “quality and

2022Proc., § 410.10 [long-arm statute].) These constitutions permit the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ ” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444 (Vons).) “[E]ach individual has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum ‘contacts, ties or relations.’ [Citations.] As a matter of fairness, a

2014(Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472 ; accord, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297 .) “Each defendant’s contacts with the forum [s]tate must be assessed individually. [Citation.]” (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790 .) Under the minimum contacts test, personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.

2013It “ensure[s] that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” ’ (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445 , quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490 , 100 S.Ct. 559 ] (World-Wide Volkswagen).) To do so, the minimum contacts test asks ‘whether the “quality and nature” of the defendant’s activity is such that it is “reasonable” and “fair” to require him to conduct his defense in that State.’ (Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92 [ 56

2016The minimum contacts test assesses ―the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.‖ (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204 .) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton, a ―plaintiff‘s residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant‘s contacts.‖ (Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780 ; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. ___ , ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [―it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State

2016The minimum contacts test assesses “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204.) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton , a “plaintiffs residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant’s contacts.” ( Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. _ , _ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [“it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State”]; H

2016The minimum contacts test assesses ―the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.‖ (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204 .) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton, a ―plaintiff‘s residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant‘s contacts.‖ (Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780 ; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. ___ , ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [―it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State

2016The minimum contacts test assesses “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204.) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton , a “plaintiffs residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant’s contacts.” ( Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. _ , _ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [“it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State”]; H

1987Due process requires that a defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" ( Id. at p. 316 [ 90 L.Ed. at p. 102 ].) The test was modified in Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 253 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 ]: "[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." (See also Shaf

1987Due process requires that a defendant have "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" ( Id. at p. 316 [ 90 L.Ed. at p. 102 ].) The test was modified in Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 253 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 ]: "[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." (See also Shaf

2025Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 .) Under the minimum contacts test, courts ask “whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92 .) There are “two types of personal jurisdiction: ‘general’ (sometimes called ‘all-purpose’) jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case-linked’) jurisdiction.” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

2025Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 .) Under the minimum contacts test, courts ask “whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92 .) There are “two types of personal jurisdiction: ‘general’ (sometimes called ‘all-purpose’) jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case-linked’) jurisdiction.” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

2021Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see also Pavlovich, at p. 268.) The minimum contacts test ensures that “a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 475 ) but only “where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose (also called “ ‘general’ ”) or case-linked (also called “ ‘specific’ ”).

2021Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see also Pavlovich, at p. 268.) The minimum contacts test ensures that “a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 475 ) but only “where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose (also called “ ‘general’ ”) or case-linked (also called “ ‘specific’ ”).

2026(Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich); see Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351, 358 (Ford Motor Co.) [under International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 , 316-317 “a tribunal’s authority depends on the defendant’s having such ‘contacts’ with the forum State that ‘the maintenance of the suit’ is ‘reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,’ and ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justi

2022Proc., § 410.10.) “The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions ‘if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” ’ ” (Pavlovich, at p. 268; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 , quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 .) “Under the minimum contacts test, ‘an essential criterion in all cases is whether the “quality and nature” of the defendant’s activity is such that it is “reasonable” and “fair”

2021(Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 .)” (BBA Aviation, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 429 .) “ ‘Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” ’ ” (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327 (Epic Communications), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268 .) “ ‘The “substantial connection” [citations] between the defendant and

2021(Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 .)” (BBA Aviation, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 429 .) “ ‘Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” ’ ” (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327 (Epic Communications), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268 .) “ ‘The “substantial connection” [citations] between the defendant and

2021Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see also Pavlovich, at p. 268.) The minimum contacts test ensures that “a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 475 ) but only “where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose (also called “ ‘general’ ”) or case-linked (also called “ ‘specific’ ”).

2021Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 ; see also Pavlovich, at p. 268.) The minimum contacts test ensures that “a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 475 ) but only “where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum State.” (Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose (also called “ ‘general’ ”) or case-linked (also called “ ‘specific’ ”).

2021(Id. at p. 830.) The Owens court explained: “it is reasonable and fair to require a defendant whose voluntary acts have given rise to a cause of action in a state to litigate his responsibility for that conduct at the place where it occurred.” (Id. at p. 831; see also Kaiser Aetna, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 901 ; Rest.2d, Conf. of Laws, § 36, subd. (1) [“A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who has done . . . an act in the state with respect to any claim in tort arising from the act.”].) Given Owens and Hess, Damron’s actions easily satisfy the minimum contac

2021(Id. at p. 830.) The Owens court explained: “it is reasonable and fair to require a defendant whose voluntary acts have given rise to a cause of action in a state to litigate his responsibility for that conduct at the place where it occurred.” (Id. at p. 831; see also Kaiser Aetna, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 901 ; Rest.2d, Conf. of Laws, § 36, subd. (1) [“A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who has done . . . an act in the state with respect to any claim in tort arising from the act.”].) Given Owens and Hess, Damron’s actions easily satisfy the minimum contac

2021The information statement presented to Rodo shareholders for their approval of the transaction disclosed that Hemm, as an interested director given his affiliation with Straumann, “has been leading the Transaction.” Respondents contend it is improper to look to Hemm’s role as a Rodo director for purposes of the minimum contacts analysis as to Straumann, since courts must assess “[e]ach defendant’s contacts with the forum State . . . individually.” (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790 (Calder).) Respondents moreover point to the presumption, founded in established principles of corporate l

2016The minimum contacts test assesses ―the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.‖ (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204 .) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton, a ―plaintiff‘s residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant‘s contacts.‖ (Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780 ; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. ___ , ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [―it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State

1966Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 [ 24 L.Ed. 565, 572 ], But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ’ [ Citations. ] ’ ’ California has equated the “doing business” requirement of Code of Civil Procedure, section 411, subdivision 2,

1966Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 [ 24 L.Ed. 565, 572 ], But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ’ [ Citations. ] ’ ’ California has equated the “doing business” requirement of Code of Civil Procedure, section 411, subdivision 2,

2026The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Shefler is not unreasonable or unfair The third prong of the minimum contacts test—whether the assumption of jurisdiction over Shefler is unreasonable or offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice— requires consideration of “‘“the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.”’” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1070 .) In a case involving an international defendant, the court also “consider[s] the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests a

2021(Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 .)” (BBA Aviation, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 429 .) “ ‘Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the ‘quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” ’ ” (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327 (Epic Communications), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268 .) “ ‘The “substantial connection” [citations] between the defendant and

2024(Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268 ; Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221 (Strasner).) Personal jurisdiction may be either general (sometimes called “all-purpose”) or specific (sometimes called “case-linked”).

2020Proc., § 410.10.) To comport with federal and state due process, California may only exercise jurisdiction when a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to satisfy ' "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." ' [Citations.] Under the minimum contacts test, we examine the quality and nature of a defendant's action to determine whether requiring him to submit to jurisdiction in California is reasonable and fair." (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221 (Strasner).) 9 "Personal jurisdiction may be either general or s

2011As the United States Supreme Court stated in that law school favorite Pennoyer v. Neff, “The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established.” (Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) 95 U.S. 714, 720 [ 24 L.Ed. 565 ].) This territorial concept of jurisdiction has two corollaries: “[E]very State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory” and “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without [(i.e., outside)] its territory.” (Id. at p. 722.) Even

2011As the United States Supreme Court stated in that law school favorite Pennoyer v. Neff, “The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established.” (Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) 95 U.S. 714, 720 [ 24 L.Ed. 565 ].) This territorial concept of jurisdiction has two corollaries: “[E]very State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory” and “no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without [(i.e., outside)] its territory.” (Id. at p. 722.) Even

1987Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 222-223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ].) Although modem technology has served to shrink the commercial world in which we live, both in a national and international context, the liberalization of the minimum contacts standard has not continued unabated.

1987Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 222-223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ].) Although modem technology has served to shrink the commercial world in which we live, both in a national and international context, the liberalization of the minimum contacts standard has not continued unabated.

2025(Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose, known as “general,” or case-related, known as “specific.” (Rivelli, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 392.) “The nature and the quality of the defendant’s contacts determine whether jurisdiction, if exercised, is general or specific.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 796 .) Where “a nonresident defendant’s activities may be described as ‘extensive or wide-ranging’ [citation] or ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic’ [citation], there is a constitutionally sufficient relationship to

2002Each case must be decided on its own facts." ( Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 576, 583 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 ( Integral Development Corp.); see Cornelison v. Chancy (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 150 , 127 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 545 P.2d 264 ( Cornelison) . ) For particular litigation, the "fair warning" standard that underlies the minimum contacts rule "is satisfied if the defendant has `purposefully directed' his activities at residents of the forum [citation], and the litigation results from alleged injuries that `arise out of or relate to' those activities [citation]." ( Bu

2026The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Shefler is not unreasonable or unfair The third prong of the minimum contacts test—whether the assumption of jurisdiction over Shefler is unreasonable or offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice— requires consideration of “‘“the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief.”’” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1070 .) In a case involving an international defendant, the court also “consider[s] the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests a

2025(Ibid.) Personal jurisdiction under the minimum contacts framework may be either all- purpose, known as “general,” or case-related, known as “specific.” (Rivelli, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 392.) “The nature and the quality of the defendant’s contacts determine whether jurisdiction, if exercised, is general or specific.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 796 .) Where “a nonresident defendant’s activities may be described as ‘extensive or wide-ranging’ [citation] or ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic’ [citation], there is a constitutionally sufficient relationship to

2026In short, “there is no material conflict in the evidence itself, so our review is de novo.” (Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 980 (Anglo Irish Bank).) B.

2016(Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1062 ; Anglo Irish, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 980 ) “The jurisdictional facts shown must pertain to each separate nonresident defendant . . . .” (Automobile Antitrust, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) If the plaintiff meets the initial burden of 11 Plaintiffs’ opposition papers in the trial court stated, “[p]laintiffs do not seek to assert ‘general jurisdiction’ over the Panama[nian] [d]efendants, only ‘specific jurisdiction.’” 14 showing a defendant’s minimum contacts, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate “‘that the exercise of jurisdiction

2016The minimum contacts test assesses ―the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.‖ (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204 .) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton, a ―plaintiff‘s residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant‘s contacts.‖ (Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780 ; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. ___ , ___ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [―it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State

2016The minimum contacts test assesses “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204.) As the high court explicitly declared in Keeton , a “plaintiffs residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant’s contacts.” ( Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 780; see also Walden v. Fiore, supra, 571 U.S. _ , _ [ 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1126 ] [“it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State”]; H