SWENBERG v. DMARCIAN, INC., 68 Cal. App. 5th 280 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2021
“California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents `on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The statute `manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations. [Citations.]’ (Sibley v. Superior Court [(1976)] 16 Cal.3d [442,] 445 [128 Cal.Rptr. 34, 546 P.2d 322].) A state may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident as long as he or she has `minimum contacts’ with that forum such that `maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” [Citations.]’ (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 [90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154].)” (Taylor-Rush v. Multitech Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 103, 112 [265 Cal.Rptr. 672] (Taylor-Rush); see Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 58 P.3d 2] (Pavlovich).)
“When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that sufficient `minimum contacts’ exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Taylor-Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112, quoting Sibley v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 445.) The plaintiff must prove the factual basis justifying exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428 [117 Cal.Rptr.3d 914] (BBA Aviation).) “The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate” and “cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 16]; see BBA Aviation, at p. 428; In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 258].)
If the plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 273.) “When the jurisdictional facts are not in dispute, personal jurisdiction is a legal question for de novo review. (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 33, 112 P.3d 28] (Snowney).) If the jurisdictional facts are conflicting, we review the lower court’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, but still review its legal conclusions de novo. (Dorel Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1273 [36 Cal.Rptr.3d 742].)” (BBA Aviation, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 429.)
292*292 “`Under the minimum contacts test, “an essential criterion in all cases is whether the `quality and nature’ of the defendant’s activity is such that it is `reasonable’ and `fair’ to require him to conduct his defense in that State.”‘” (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327 [101 Cal.Rptr.3d 572] (Epic Communications), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268.) “`The “substantial connection” [citations] between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. [Citations.]’ (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 112 [94 L.Ed.2d 92, 107 S.Ct. 1026].) A defendant’s physical presence in the state is not required, as long as his or her efforts were “`purposely directed'” toward residents of that state. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476 [85 L.Ed.2d 528, 105 S.Ct. 2174]; St. Joe Paper Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 991, 997 [175 Cal.Rptr. 94].) Thus, personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a defendant who has caused an effect in the forum state by an act or omission occurring elsewhere. (McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223-224 [2 L.Ed.2d 223, 78 S.Ct. 199]; Sibley v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 445-446; Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899 [80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].)” (Taylor-Rush, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 112.) But there must be evidence the nonresident defendant intentionally targeted his or her conduct at the forum state and not just at a plaintiff who lives in that state. (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, 25 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 1]; Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 288 [188 L.Ed.2d 12, 134 S.Ct. 1115] (Walden).)
Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. (Epic Communications, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 327.) “General jurisdiction exists where the defendant has such pervasive contacts with the forum state that it is fair to subject it to jurisdiction for all purposes. (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court [(2002)] 104 Cal.App.4th [1080,] 1090, 1097 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 683].) … [¶] Specific jurisdiction exists when, though the defendant lacks such pervasive forum contacts that he may be treated as present for all purposes, it is nonetheless proper to subject him to the forum state’s jurisdiction in connection with a particular controversy.” (Epic Communications, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 327.) “`When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the “`relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'” [Citations.] A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) “the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits” [citation]; (2) “the `controversy is related to or “arises out of” [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum'” [citations]; and (3) “`the assertion of 293*293 personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice”‘” [citations].'” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 (Snowney), quoting Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.)