§Why CasetextPricing

The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

23 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,614 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,200 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,295 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

  4. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,819 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

    137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)   Cited 2,180 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy

  6. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,872 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

  7. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,579 times   109 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) )

  8. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.

    374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2,656 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"

  9. Mavrix Photo Inc. v. Brand Techs. Inc.

    647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 921 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant expressly aimed the content of "celebrity-gossip.net" at California because the site had a specific focus on the California-centric entertainment industry

  10. Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.

    342 U.S. 437 (1952)   Cited 1,817 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state, finding such business activity was continuous and systematic

  11. 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 345,715 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss