effects test in California

2018A trial court is required to instruct the jury “ ‘ “on the general principles of law governing the case.” ’ ” (People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 434 .) In particular, a “[d]efendant is entitled to an instruction that focuses the jury’s attention on facts relevant to its determination of the existence of reasonable doubt regarding identification, by listing, in a neutral manner, the relevant factors supported by the evidence.” (People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1230 .) “[A]n explanation of the effects of those factors,” however, “is best left to argument by counsel, cross-examin

2016“We hold that a proper instruction on eyewitness identification factors should focus the jury’s attention on facts relevant to its determination of the existence of reasonable doubt regarding identification, by listing, in a neutral manner, the relevant factors supported by the evidence. [¶] The instruction should not take a position as to the impact of each of the psychological factors listed.” (Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1141 .) Further, “the listing of factors to be considered by the jury will sufficiently bring to the jury’s attention the appropriate factors, and . . . an explanation o

2026The effects test With respect to tort claims (such as those plaintiff asserts against Simon), courts generally apply a test derived from Calder, supra, 465 U.S. 783 that “requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 271 , fn. omitted; accord Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 228 [“Under California 9 Plaintiff’s opening brief includes a separate heading for what it appears to regard a

2026The effects test is used to determine purposeful direction and is applied in the context of cases involving intentional torts (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 270 (Pavlovich)) and cases of fraud and misrepresentation (see Casey v. Hill (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1143 , 1171). “[M]ost courts agree that merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.” (Pavlovich, at pp. 270–271.) The evidence must also show the defendant’s acts were “expressly ai

2018A trial court is required to instruct the jury “ ‘ “on the general principles of law governing the case.” ’ ” (People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 434 .) In particular, a “[d]efendant is entitled to an instruction that focuses the jury’s attention on facts relevant to its determination of the existence of reasonable doubt regarding identification, by listing, in a neutral manner, the relevant factors supported by the evidence.” (People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1230 .) “[A]n explanation of the effects of those factors,” however, “is best left to argument by counsel, cross-examin

2016“We hold that a proper instruction on eyewitness identification factors should focus the jury’s attention on facts relevant to its determination of the existence of reasonable doubt regarding identification, by listing, in a neutral manner, the relevant factors supported by the evidence. [¶] The instruction should not take a position as to the impact of each of the psychological factors listed.” (Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1141 .) Further, “the listing of factors to be considered by the jury will sufficiently bring to the jury’s attention the appropriate factors, and . . . an explanation o

2015(Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 270 .) Most courts have agreed, nonetheless, that “merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.” (Id. at pp. 270-271; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 [courts have recognized that Calder “cannot stand for the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific jurisdiction”].) To narrow the potentially bro

2002Inc. (9th Cir.2000) 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 ( Bancroft ).) Despite this struggle, most courts agree that merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.

2026The effects test With respect to tort claims (such as those plaintiff asserts against Simon), courts generally apply a test derived from Calder, supra, 465 U.S. 783 that “requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 271 , fn. omitted; accord Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 228 [“Under California 9 Plaintiff’s opening brief includes a separate heading for what it appears to regard a

2025(See Omeluk v. 3 The effects test is sometimes referred to as the “‘purposeful direction’ test” (Strasner, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 227, fn. 2 ) or “the ‘Calder effects test’ derived from Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783” (Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 937 , 965). 8 Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S (9th Cir. 1995) 52 F.3d 267, 270 [“If any of the three requirements is not satisfied, jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the defendant of due process of law”]; Safieddine v. MBC FZ, LLC (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1086 , 1099 [“We need only consider purposeful availment”].)4 The parties agr

2024This is true of the defendant’s right to conduct his own defense, which, when exercised, “usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant.” … Second, an error has been deemed structural if the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure. … Third, an error has been deemed structural if the error always results in fundamental unfairness.’” (In re Christopher L. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1063 , 1077, quoting Weaver v. Massachusetts (2017) 582 U.S. 286 , 295–296.) There is a strong presumption that errors are not structural, “and it will be the rare case where a co

2023“Errors may be deemed structural according to ‘“three broad rationales”’: where ‘“the right at issue is not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous conviction but instead protects some other interest,”’ ‘“where the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure,”’ or where ‘“the error always results in fundamental unfairness.”’” (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1208, quoting In re Christopher L. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1063 , 1077.) 10. from a denial of a section [1172.6] petition, the private interests at stake are the liberty interests of the person who may be in custody and

2018(Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem International, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (Axiom Foods).) "Walden requires more." (Axiom Foods, at p. 1069.) The Ninth Circuit now looks "to the defendant's 'own contacts' with the forum, not to the defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's connections there." (Id. at p. 1070.) Even if a defendant has individually 18 targeted conduct at a plaintiff he knows resides in the forum state, specific jurisdiction now lies under the Ninth Circuit's effects test only if his suit-related conduct creates a substantial connection with that state.

2018(Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem International, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (Axiom Foods).) "Walden requires more." (Axiom Foods, at p. 1069.) The Ninth Circuit now looks "to the defendant's 'own contacts' with the forum, not to the defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's connections there." (Id. at p. 1070.) Even if a defendant has individually 18 targeted conduct at a plaintiff he knows resides in the forum state, specific jurisdiction now lies under the Ninth Circuit's effects test only if his suit-related conduct creates a substantial connection with that state.

2018In In re Marriage of Lontos (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 61 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 ( Lontos ), for example, the court found personal jurisdiction in a child support action over a Marine stationed in New Mexico based in part on the "effect" his abandonment of his wife and three children had in compelling their return to California and dependence on public aid. ( Id. at pp. 71-72, 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 .) And in McGlothen v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 106 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 129 ( McGlothen ), on similar facts the court found jurisdiction over a professional baseball player whose abandonment of his wife

2018In In re Marriage of Lontos (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 61 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 ( Lontos ), for example, the court found personal jurisdiction in a child support action over a Marine stationed in New Mexico based in part on the "effect" his abandonment of his wife and three children had in compelling their return to California and dependence on public aid. ( Id. at pp. 71-72, 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 .) And in McGlothen v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 106 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 129 ( McGlothen ), on similar facts the court found jurisdiction over a professional baseball player whose abandonment of his wife

2002June 16, 1999, No. 98 C 1903) 1999 WL 417352 ; Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffee Service Inc. (CD.Ill.1998) 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 ( Bunn-Matic I ).) [3] (See, e.g., Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 446 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 546 P.2d 322 ["The mere causing of an `effect' in California ... is not necessarily sufficient to afford a constitutional basis for jurisdiction"]; Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 1750, 1762 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test because there was "no evidence [the defendants] purposefully directed their act

2002June 16, 1999, No. 98 C 1903) 1999 WL 417352 ; Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffee Service Inc. (CD.Ill.1998) 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 ( Bunn-Matic I ).) [3] (See, e.g., Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 446 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 546 P.2d 322 ["The mere causing of an `effect' in California ... is not necessarily sufficient to afford a constitutional basis for jurisdiction"]; Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 1750, 1762 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test because there was "no evidence [the defendants] purposefully directed their act

2002Thus, Pavlovich's alleged "conduct in ... posting [a] passive Web site[ ] on the Internet is not," by itself, "sufficient to subject" him "to jurisdiction in California." ( Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1060 , 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 611 ( JDO ), fn. omitted [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant had "passive Web sites on the Internet"]; Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (9th Cir.1997) 130 F.3d 414, 419-420 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant posted infringing

2002Thus, Pavlovich’s alleged “conduct in . . . posting [a] passive Web site[] on the Internet is not,” by itself, “sufficient to subject” him “to jurisdiction in California.” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1060 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 611 ] (JDO), fn. omitted [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant had “passive Web sites on the Internet”]; Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 130 F.3d 414, 419-420 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant posted infringing

2026The effects test With respect to tort claims (such as those plaintiff asserts against Simon), courts generally apply a test derived from Calder, supra, 465 U.S. 783 that “requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 271 , fn. omitted; accord Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 228 [“Under California 9 Plaintiff’s opening brief includes a separate heading for what it appears to regard a

2026Therefore, the effects test outlined in the case of Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783 applies.

2026The effects test With respect to tort claims (such as those plaintiff asserts against Simon), courts generally apply a test derived from Calder, supra, 465 U.S. 783 that “requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 271 , fn. omitted; accord Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 228 [“Under California 9 Plaintiff’s opening brief includes a separate heading for what it appears to regard a

2025The Effects Test In the intentional tort context, the United States Supreme Court has utilized an effects test. ( Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 269–270; Gilmore Bank, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1569–1570.) Under the effects test, specific personal jurisdiction “ ‘may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere.’ ” (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 292, quoting Taylor- Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112 .) However, like the forum benefits test, the effects test “requires express aiming at the forum (not nec

2018In rejecting jurisdiction based on his causing a California resident to become pregnant, Bartlett interpreted Kulko to hold that the effects test "is not applicable to personal domestic relations." ( Id. at p. 76, 150 Cal.Rptr. 25 .) Later California cases have read Kulko more narrowly as holding merely that the effects test would not apply to the facts of that particular case . ( Kulko , supra , 436 U.S. at pp. 96, 98 S.Ct. 1690 -97.) Accordingly, these decisions have applied the effects test to domestic relations cases with different fact patterns.

2018In In re Marriage of Lontos (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 61 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 ( Lontos ), for example, the court found personal jurisdiction in a child support action over a Marine stationed in New Mexico based in part on the "effect" his abandonment of his wife and three children had in compelling their return to California and dependence on public aid. ( Id. at pp. 71-72, 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 .) And in McGlothen v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 106 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 129 ( McGlothen ), on similar facts the court found jurisdiction over a professional baseball player whose abandonment of his wife

2020Jurisdiction over [the newspaper] [was] therefore proper in California based on the ‘effects’ of their Florida conduct in California.” Ghuman’s allegation that he did not receive the payments he expected in California is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction. “[M]ost courts agree that merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.” ( Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 270–271.) “[T]he Calder effects test requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at o

2014Yet, even as to this second prong, our Supreme Court has clarified that the “ ‘forum contacts need not be directed at the plaintiff in order to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction.’ ” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1068 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33 , 112 P.3d 28 ].) Furthermore, the effects test is not the sole purposeful availment test used in tort cases. 2.

2018In In re Marriage of Lontos (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 61 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 ( Lontos ), for example, the court found personal jurisdiction in a child support action over a Marine stationed in New Mexico based in part on the "effect" his abandonment of his wife and three children had in compelling their return to California and dependence on public aid. ( Id. at pp. 71-72, 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 .) And in McGlothen v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 106 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 129 ( McGlothen ), on similar facts the court found jurisdiction over a professional baseball player whose abandonment of his wife

2018In In re Marriage of Lontos (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 61 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 ( Lontos ), for example, the court found personal jurisdiction in a child support action over a Marine stationed in New Mexico based in part on the "effect" his abandonment of his wife and three children had in compelling their return to California and dependence on public aid. ( Id. at pp. 71-72, 152 Cal.Rptr. 271 .) And in McGlothen v. Superior Court (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 106 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 129 ( McGlothen ), on similar facts the court found jurisdiction over a professional baseball player whose abandonment of his wife

2018To apply the effects test to this case, we must trace its evolution from Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 ( Kulko ) to Calder to Walden and highlight intervening cases interpreting each of these in turn.

2018To apply the effects test to this case, we must trace its evolution from Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 ( Kulko ) to Calder to Walden and highlight intervening cases interpreting each of these in turn.

2025The Effects Test In the intentional tort context, the United States Supreme Court has utilized an effects test. ( Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 269–270; Gilmore Bank, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1569–1570.) Under the effects test, specific personal jurisdiction “ ‘may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere.’ ” (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 292, quoting Taylor- Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112 .) However, like the forum benefits test, the effects test “requires express aiming at the forum (not nec

2002June 16, 1999, No. 98 C 1903) 1999 WL 417352 ; Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffee Service Inc. (CD.Ill.1998) 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375 ( Bunn-Matic I ).) [3] (See, e.g., Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 446 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 546 P.2d 322 ["The mere causing of an `effect' in California ... is not necessarily sufficient to afford a constitutional basis for jurisdiction"]; Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 1750, 1762 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 191 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test because there was "no evidence [the defendants] purposefully directed their act

2024(See Weaver v. Massachusetts (2017) 582 U.S. 286, 295-296 [structural errors relate to the framework of the trial and tend to protect an interest other than erroneous conviction where the effects of the error are hard to measure].) Where a court’s Faretta advisement is “inadequate,” People v. Bush (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 457, 475-477 (Bush) held that a harmless error standard was appropriate.

2024This is true of the defendant’s right to conduct his own defense, which, when exercised, “usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant.” … Second, an error has been deemed structural if the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure. … Third, an error has been deemed structural if the error always results in fundamental unfairness.’” (In re Christopher L. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1063 , 1077, quoting Weaver v. Massachusetts (2017) 582 U.S. 286 , 295–296.) There is a strong presumption that errors are not structural, “and it will be the rare case where a co

2002(See IMO, supra, 155 F.3d at p. 265 ["we ... agree with the conclusion reached by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits that jurisdiction under Calder requires more than a finding that the harm caused by the defendant's intentional tort is primarily felt within the forum"]; Griffis v. Luban (Minn.2002) 646 N.W.2d 527, 534 [the United States Supreme Court "did make it clear that foreseeability of effects in the forum is not itself enough to justify long-arm jurisdiction"].) Instead, the plaintiff must also "point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly ai

2002(See IMO, supra, 155 F.3d at p. 265 [“we . . . agree with the conclusion reached by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits that jurisdiction under Calder requires more than a finding that the harm caused by the defendant’s intentional tort is primarily felt within the forum”]; Griffis v. Luban (Minn. 2002) 646 N.W.2d 527, 534 [the United States Supreme Court “did make it clear that foreseeability of effects in the forum is not itself enough to justify long-arm jurisdiction”].) Instead, the plaintiff must also “point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly

2015(Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1057 .) Merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.

2002Thus, Pavlovich's alleged "conduct in ... posting [a] passive Web site[ ] on the Internet is not," by itself, "sufficient to subject" him "to jurisdiction in California." ( Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1060 , 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 611 ( JDO ), fn. omitted [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant had "passive Web sites on the Internet"]; Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (9th Cir.1997) 130 F.3d 414, 419-420 [refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the effects test even though the defendant posted infringing

2015(Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 270 .) Most courts have agreed, nonetheless, that “merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.” (Id. at pp. 270-271; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 [courts have recognized that Calder “cannot stand for the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific jurisdiction”].) To narrow the potentially bro

2002(See IMO, supra, 155 F.3d at p. 265 ["we ... agree with the conclusion reached by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits that jurisdiction under Calder requires more than a finding that the harm caused by the defendant's intentional tort is primarily felt within the forum"]; Griffis v. Luban (Minn.2002) 646 N.W.2d 527, 534 [the United States Supreme Court "did make it clear that foreseeability of effects in the forum is not itself enough to justify long-arm jurisdiction"].) Instead, the plaintiff must also "point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly ai

2025The Effects Test In the intentional tort context, the United States Supreme Court has utilized an effects test. ( Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 269–270; Gilmore Bank, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1569–1570.) Under the effects test, specific personal jurisdiction “ ‘may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere.’ ” (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 292, quoting Taylor- Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112 .) However, like the forum benefits test, the effects test “requires express aiming at the forum (not nec

2025The Effects Test In the intentional tort context, the United States Supreme Court has utilized an effects test. ( Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 269–270; Gilmore Bank, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1569–1570.) Under the effects test, specific personal jurisdiction “ ‘may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere.’ ” (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 292, quoting Taylor- Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112 .) However, like the forum benefits test, the effects test “requires express aiming at the forum (not nec