Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

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.

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Calder v. Jones

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

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) )

Hanson v. Denckla

Holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendant's only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiff-settlor's unilateral activity of moving to Florida

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.

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"

Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County

Holding that personal service in a state is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction

Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National

Holding that California had personal jurisdiction over declaratory judgment defendant because of defendant's challenge to plaintiff's registration for its domain name, which challenge was filed with an agency located in Virginia but affected the plaintiff's ability to use the domain name in California

Dole Food Co. v. Watts

Holding that because purposeful direction was established, it was "obvious" that the second prong of the minimum contacts test was also satisfied

Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen

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”

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 4 - Summons

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 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Section 1964 - Civil remedies

Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

Section 1750 - Title of act

Section 410.10 - Generally

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

Section 415.40 - Service on person outside state

Providing that service of summons is complete on the tenth day after the mailing pursuant to that section

Section 417.20 - Proof summons served on person outside state

Requiring that, when service is made by mail pursuant to Section 415.40, "proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence"