33 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,861 times 237 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,924 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,702 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
564 U.S. 873 (2011) Cited 1,367 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,892 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Johnston v. Multidata
523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 623 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter
768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 407 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff
Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc.
485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 505 times
Holding that forum selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger contract involved transactions that included non-signatories
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.
552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 379 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Synergy Drone, LLC v. Parrot S.A. et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines

Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff

Holding that forum selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger contract involved transactions that included non-signatories

Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time