§Why CasetextPricing

Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

26 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,375 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,957 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  4. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,924 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

  5. 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) )

  6. 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"

  7. 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"

  8. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy

    453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,058 times   2 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"

  9. Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National

    223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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

  10. 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”

  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 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

  12. 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

  13. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,851 times   189 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR