29 Cited authorities

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,906 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
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy
453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,054 times 1 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"
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) Cited 1,311 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
Doe v. Unocal Corp.
248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 944 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)
Collegesource Inc. v. Academyone Inc.
653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 600 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "a corporation incurs economic loss, for jurisdictional purposes, in the forum of its principal place of business"
Fletcher v. Atex, Inc.
68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 799 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the inclusion of descriptions of the parent-subsidiary relationship and the parent company's logo in the subsidiary's promotional literature did not justify piercing the corporate veil to reach the parent
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc.
130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 564 times
Holding that the maintenance of a passive website that contained advertisements did not even justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction over the defendant, whom the plaintiff conceded was not subject to general jurisdiction
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 514 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "the policy expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of violations of international prohibitions on torture" weighed against dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds
Gross v. Newburger, Loeb Co.
434 U.S. 1035 (1978) Cited 269 times
Holding that a trial judge was not required to recuse himself where his son was an associate at the law firm representing the defendant because his son did not work on the matter and his salary interest was too remote to constitute a disqualifying “financial interest”
Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc.
788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 429 times
Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing jurisdictional discovery where the plaintiffs "state only that they `believe' discovery will enable them to demonstrate sufficient California business contacts to establish the court's personal jurisdiction"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 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

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

29 Cited authorities

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

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"

Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania

Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

Holding "a corporation incurs economic loss, for jurisdictional purposes, in the forum of its principal place of business"

Holding that the inclusion of descriptions of the parent-subsidiary relationship and the parent company's logo in the subsidiary's promotional literature did not justify piercing the corporate veil to reach the parent

Holding that the maintenance of a passive website that contained advertisements did not even justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction over the defendant, whom the plaintiff conceded was not subject to general jurisdiction

Holding "the policy expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of violations of international prohibitions on torture" weighed against dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds

Holding that a trial judge was not required to recuse himself where his son was an associate at the law firm representing the defendant because his son did not work on the matter and his salary interest was too remote to constitute a disqualifying “financial interest”

Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing jurisdictional discovery where the plaintiffs "state only that they `believe' discovery will enable them to demonstrate sufficient California business contacts to establish the court's personal jurisdiction"

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