13 Cited authorities

  1. Walden v. Fiore

    571 U.S. 277 (2014)   Cited 4,548 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))
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

    137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)   Cited 2,239 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in California in part because they "did not allege that they obtained [the drug at issue] through California physicians or from any other California source; nor did they claim that they were injured by [that drug] or were treated for their injuries in California"
  3. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,953 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
  4. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

    564 U.S. 873 (2011)   Cited 1,385 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
  5. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.

    24 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that service of process fails when sent generally to a business's address
  6. Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Zara

    199 Cal.App.4th 383 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 97 times
    Stating that "an individual may be served by substitute service only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint 'cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered' to the individual defendant"
  7. Kott v. Superior Court

    45 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that, under California law, which does not require the transmission of documents abroad and, consequently, does not implicate the Hague Service Convention, the only method of service on a foreign national is service of summons by publication where the party's address remains unknown during the publication period despite the exercise of reasonable diligence
  8. 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
  9. Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg

    53 Cal.App.4th 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 66 times
    In Ruttenberg, the court explained: "If an heir refuses to participate in the suit as a plaintiff, he or she may be named as a defendant so that all heirs are before the court in the same action.
  10. Lebel v. Mai

    210 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 20 times
    Noting plaintiff tenant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining a foreign landlord's address for purposes of the Hague Convention when plaintiff knew landlord lived in London, England and when defendant had provided plaintiff both his email address and telephone number where he could be reached in connection with the tenancy