§Why CasetextPricing

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

RESPONSE

11 Cited authorities

  1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 17,086 times   46 Legal Analyses
    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.

  2. Doe v. Unocal Corp.

    248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 946 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

  3. Ochoa v. J.B. Martin and Sons Farms, Inc.

    287 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that an Arizona district court had personal jurisdiction over a New York farm being sued by laborers from Arizona for breach of contract and statutory violations where the only contacts between the farm and Arizona were the efforts directed at Arizona by the labor contractor who, on the facts of the case, acted as the farm's agent under Arizona law when recruiting the laborers

  4. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 94 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding subsidiary was parent's agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction and as such jurisdiction over parent was proper

  5. Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

    781 F. Supp. 1079 (E.D. Pa. 1992)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that a subsidiary's contacts can be imputed for purposes of service of process where "a parent uses subsidiary to do what it otherwise would have done itself. . . ."

  6. Bulova Watch Co., Inc. v. K. Hattori Co., Ltd.

    508 F. Supp. 1322 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)   Cited 125 times
    Finding subsidiaries to be general agents where the parent corporation manufactured watches and sold them to its American subsidiaries for distribution in the U.S., its largest export market: "Large and sophisticated as it may be, it is very much the hub of a wheel with many spokes. It is appropriate, therefore, to look to the center of the wheel in Japan when the spokes violate substantive rights in other countries."

  7. Acorn v. Household Intern., Inc.

    211 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 46 times
    Holding unconscionable under California law arbitration provision that prohibited class actions, required the result of the arbitration provision be confidential, and contained judicial carve-out only for party that drafted contract

  8. In re Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

    810 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that plaintiff's made a sufficient showing that a U.S. subsidiary was acting as an agent of its foreign parent under a "but-for" (representative services) theory

  9. Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.

    696 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 27 times
    Concluding "common law claims premised on [Labor Code violations] are therefore preempted"

  10. 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

  11. Section 3 CCR 714-1-P-1

    3 Colo. Code Regs. § 714-1-P-1   Cited 438 times
    Providing that defendant “will repair any leaks resulting from defects in the materials or workmanship”