12 Cited authorities

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,786 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Mich. v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.
572 U.S. 782 (2014) Cited 459 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that tribal immunity extends to "suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities, even when they take place off Indian lands"
Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court
83 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 664 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the alter ego doctrine is a mechanism for imposing liability on a parent company for the actions of its subsidiaries whereas single entity liability applies to sister corporations
F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
130 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 72 times
Noting that control by means of interlocking directors and officers, consolidated reporting, and shared professional services is normal
DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court
104 Cal.App.4th 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 65 times
Holding that personal jurisdiction did not exist even though the defendant company registered to do business in California, had a California agent for service of process, and had two officers residing in California
People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enters.
2 Cal.5th 222 (Cal. 2016) Cited 36 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether judgment against entity would reach tribe's assets is relevant but "neither a threshold requirement for immunity nor a predominant factor in the overall analysis"
Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court
165 Cal.App.4th 969 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 40 times
Finding a substantial connection between the plaintiffs' claims for misrepresentation and concealment and alleged misrepresentations or omissions made to them in California
Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court
206 Cal.App.3d 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) Cited 65 times
Docket No. B034528. December 23, 1988. Page 1223 COUNSEL Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Peter H. Mason and Victoria Pynchon for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Bleiweis, Belshaw, Melka Wall and Scott Wall for Real Party in Interest. OPINION WOODS (A.M.), P.J. In this original proceeding in mandate a foreign defendant challenges a trial court's denial of its motion to quash a second service of process for lack of minimum contacts. The motion was denied on the ground that the issue has been determined
Corzo v. Banco Central de Reserva del Peru
243 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 32 times
Holding that "secondary or incidental results" do not count under direct effects prong
Hall v. LaRonde
56 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 35 times
In Hall v. LaRonde, 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 (1997), Hall, a California software designer, had developed a software module that could be integrated into a retail software package owned by LaRonde, a New York resident.

Response Reply

12 Cited authorities

Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

Holding that tribal immunity extends to "suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities, even when they take place off Indian lands"

Holding that the alter ego doctrine is a mechanism for imposing liability on a parent company for the actions of its subsidiaries whereas single entity liability applies to sister corporations

Noting that control by means of interlocking directors and officers, consolidated reporting, and shared professional services is normal

Holding that personal jurisdiction did not exist even though the defendant company registered to do business in California, had a California agent for service of process, and had two officers residing in California

Holding that whether judgment against entity would reach tribe's assets is relevant but "neither a threshold requirement for immunity nor a predominant factor in the overall analysis"

Finding a substantial connection between the plaintiffs' claims for misrepresentation and concealment and alleged misrepresentations or omissions made to them in California

Holding that "secondary or incidental results" do not count under direct effects prong

In Hall v. LaRonde, 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 (1997), Hall, a California software designer, had developed a software module that could be integrated into a retail software package owned by LaRonde, a New York resident.