38 Cited authorities

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"
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,401 times 87 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,467 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))
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"
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) )
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,748 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"
Boschetto v. Hansing
539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,223 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the lone transaction for the sale of one item" did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in California because there were no allegations that the seller was a regular user of eBay to sell cars or "as a broader vehicle for commercial activity"
Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co.
342 U.S. 437 (1952) Cited 1,831 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
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,164 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”
Picot v. Weston
780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 552 times
Holding that the defendant's two trips to California did not create sufficient minimum contacts to subject him to 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
Section 410.10 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 Cited 1,357 times 1 Legal Analyses
Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements

Barney v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

38 Cited authorities

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

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))

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, 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 "the lone transaction for the sale of one item" did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendants in California because there were no allegations that the seller was a regular user of eBay to sell cars or "as a broader vehicle for commercial activity"

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

Holding that the defendant's two trips to California did not create sufficient minimum contacts to subject him to 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

Allowing for jurisdiction over non-residents coextensive with due process requirements