forum contacts claim in California

2020According to these courts, ‘Website interactivity is important only insofar as it reflects commercial activity, and then only insofar as that commercial activity demonstrates purposeful targeting of residents of the forum state or purposeful availment of the benefits or privileges of the forum state.’ [Citations.]” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1064 .) Bristol-Myers endorsed “a sliding scale approach to specific jurisdiction in which . . . ‘the more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts

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.] . . .

2020(Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1781-1782 .) The “sliding scale” in Snowney is specific to websites.

2020According to these courts, ‘Website interactivity is important only insofar as it reflects commercial activity, and then only insofar as that commercial activity demonstrates purposeful targeting of residents of the forum state or purposeful availment of the benefits or privileges of the forum state.’ [Citations.]” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1064 .) Bristol-Myers endorsed “a sliding scale approach to specific jurisdiction in which . . . ‘the more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts

2014As we discussed, Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 was relied on by the Vons court in its articulation of this “substantial connection” standard. ( Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 445-446, 448.) In Cornelison, the defendant, a Nebraska resident and a commercial trucker, was sued by a plaintiff, a resident of California, in a California court for his negligence in causing an 16 The court rejected the invitation of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States to reconsider Vons and adopt the substantive relevance test of relatedness.

2014As we discussed, Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 was relied on by the Vons court in its articulation of this “substantial connection” standard. ( Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 445-446, 448.) In Cornelison, the defendant, a Nebraska resident and a commercial trucker, was sued by a plaintiff, a resident of California, in a California court for his negligence in causing an 16 The court rejected the invitation of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States to reconsider Vons and adopt the substantive relevance test of relatedness.

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.] . . .

2005Bank in Nashville v. Wedge Group Inc. (6th Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 1087, 1091 .) Amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States urges us to reconsider Vons and, instead, adopt the substantive relevance test.