§Why CasetextPricing

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

MOTION to Dismiss FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF DEFENDANT CONOCOPHILLIPS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

29 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,618 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 5,204 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 4,301 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 16,825 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 2,181 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 4,874 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 22,590 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 2,662 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 923 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. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy

    453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,029 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court "need not permit even limited discovery" where a "plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants"

  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 345,981 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