Going to California

Yue v. Yang, No. A159145 (D1d5 Mar. 25, 2021)

A Canadian made a bunch of highly inflammatory posts against a California resident on Chinese language Internet bulletin boards that were themselves located in California. Plaintiff Californian sued for defamation. The trial court quashed service for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Generally speaking, making postings on the Internet does not subject you to personal jurisdiction anywhere they might be read by somebody upset by them. But when your stay stuff like “I am going to come to California and bully you in your back yard,” and threaten to “go to California” and “destroy you the shyster in U.S. federal court,” the posts cross the line from generalized speech on the Internet to the kind of stuff that satisfies the Calder effects test. That is, when you deliberately aim harmful speech at someone, that is specifically directed to the jurisdiction they live in, you have purposefully availed yourself of the legal regime of that state and thus of its courts. 

Reversed.

Et tu, Calder?

Hogue v. Hogue, No. C083285 (D3 Oct. 30, 2017) 

Wife fled her allegedly abusive Husband in Georgia and moved back in with her mom in California. Wife then sought a domestic violence restraining order in Sacto Superior Court. Husband specially appeared and moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction because there was no evidence of abuse that occurred in California, only Georgia. Husband’s only California contact related to any abuse was a video of him simulating suicide that he sent to Wife over the Internet, although at a time he knew she was in California. The superior court quashed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal holds that the video was a sufficient minimum contact to satisfy due process. It met the test “under a species of specific jurisdiction in which a defendant acting elsewhere causes effects in California of a nature that are ‘exceptional’ and subject to ‘special regulation’ in this state.” The availability of domestic violence restraining orders “bespeaks California’s concern with an exceptional type of conduct that it subjects to special regulation.” So when Husband directed the video to Wife, who he knew was in California, with clear intent to cause her the kind of distress that a DVRO protects against, he did enough to merit jurisdiction here.

Reversed.

This result seems fine, but the nomenclature is a little weird. Isn’t this just a routine application of the “effects test” from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)? I.e., when you undertake a tortious or wrongful act that is “expressly aimed” at harming someone in a particular state, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of its courts so long as its generally fair to do so. See Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (2002) (explaining the outer limits of the Calder test in California).

This “special regulation” test seems like both more and potentially less than that is required. Notably, the quote comes out of a Court of Appeal case from the ‘70s, so it predates Calder. Calder doesn’t require a state to “specially regulate” something for its effects test to apply—it is the defendant’s act of purposefully aiming harmful conduct into a state that matters. Notably, Calder dealt with plain ‘ol defamation of a TV celebrity, which hardly an area subject to some kind of special heighened protection under substantive law. 

On the other hand, even if there were a specific or special California regulation, without “expressly aimed” acts by the defendant that constitute purposeful availment, federal due process would nonetheless preclude hailing him into court here. See HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1171 n.2 (2009). Particularly since personal jurisdiction in California is a question of the outer limits of federal law, see Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, the existence of particular state prerogatives seems beside the point.

Abetting Collection Avoidance Is Purposeful Availment

Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust New Zealand, Ltd., No. G048053 (D4d3 Jan. 21, 2014)

The court of appeal reverses an order quashing service for lack of personal jurisdiction. In doing so, it reads the effects test enunciated in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) and subsequent California Supreme Court cases to require only the knowing direction of an intentional tort into the California forum, but not necessarily at the plaintiff in the case.