§Why CasetextPricing

Gidding et al v. Anderson et al

Reply Brief 36 of Defendants S.A.S. Les Champs Reniers and Christophe Rapeneau ISO Their Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

6 Cited authorities

  1. Calder v. Jones

    465 U.S. 783 (1984)   Cited 4,611 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"

  2. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme

    433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 917 times
    Holding that the purposeful direction test considers all of a defendant's contacts with the forum, "whether or not those contacts involve wrongful activity by the defendant"

  3. Doe v. Unocal Corp.

    248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 931 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

  4. Roth v. Garcia Marquez

    942 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 691 times
    Holding that jurisdiction was reasonable even though only two reasonableness factors favored plaintiff, while three favored defendant

  5. Davis v. Metro Productions, Inc.

    885 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 310 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Calder and Keeton preclude any application of the fiduciary shield doctrine under due process

  6. Transure, Inc. v. Marsh and McLennan, Inc.

    766 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that the presence of citizens of foreign states on both sides of the litigation does not destroy diversity jurisdiction where there is a legitimate controversy between diverse U.S. citizens and foreigners are additional parties; and there is complete diversity as to the U.S. citizens