72 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,917 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.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,307 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
517 U.S. 559 (1996) Cited 2,867 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,646 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"
Central Bank of Denver v. First I.S. Bk. of Denver
511 U.S. 164 (1994) Cited 1,702 times 79 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 10(b)’s private right of action does not include suits against aiders and abettors
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,791 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,700 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"
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
548 U.S. 30 (2006) Cited 404 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 1231's "removal period" does "not begin until the date of the Court's final order"
Edgar v. MITE Corp.
457 U.S. 624 (1982) Cited 772 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs
Bancroft Masters, Inc., v. Augusta National
223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,230 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
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 348,503 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,533 times 186 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
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,265 times 79 Legal Analyses
Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"
Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
18 U.S.C. § 1030 Cited 3,253 times 408 Legal Analyses
Holding cellular phones are protected
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,791 times 42 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized
18 U.S.C. § 2520 Cited 1,347 times 2 Legal Analyses
Permitting recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred
Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications
18 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 1,330 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"
Section 2707 - Civil action
18 U.S.C. § 2707 Cited 458 times 19 Legal Analyses
Granting relief to those "aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind"
Section 630 - Legislative declarations
Cal. Pen. Code § 630 Cited 280 times 23 Legal Analyses
Noting that CIPA was passed "to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state"
Section 631 - Unlawful tapping
Cal. Pen. Code § 631 Cited 226 times 13 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting "any person who . . . makes any unauthorized connection . . . or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication . . . reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable . . . "

Valentine et al v. NebuAd, Inc. et al

72 Cited authorities

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.

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

Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

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"

Holding that Section 10(b)’s private right of action does not include suits against aiders and abettors

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

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"

Holding that Section 1231's "removal period" does "not begin until the date of the Court's final order"

Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs

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

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

Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"

Holding cellular phones are protected

Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”

Permitting recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as a reasonable attorney's fee and other costs of litigation reasonably incurred

Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"

Granting relief to those "aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind"

Noting that CIPA was passed "to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state"

Prohibiting "any person who . . . makes any unauthorized connection . . . or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication . . . reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable . . . "