Summary of Facts Mary owns and operates a business in Vermont that sells ski equipment to resorts based in Vermont. Mary signs a contract with California-based company Froogle, allowing her to advertise on their website. Mary never visits California, doing all her business either by phone or online. Froogle alleges Mary has violated the contract between the two parties and files suit in California. Mary claims California holds no jurisdiction over her, while Froogle believes that the company being based in California gives enough credence over personal jurisdiction.
The issue in this case is whether or not the California Court has personal jurisdiction over Mary.
Rule Abbott ...view middle of the document...
Jewish Def. Org. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045 (1999), upheld Bridgestone by stating the effects test can only be satisfied if the plaintiff can point to contacts which demonstrate that the defendant expressly aimed its conduct at the forum, and thereby made the forum the focal point of the activity. Simply asserting that the defendant knew that the plaintiff's principal place of business was located in the forum would be insufficient in itself to meet this requirement. The defendant must exhibit intentions specifically aimed at and targeted on the forum state for the test to be satisfied. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
As upheld in Abbott, California’s long-arm statute allows for personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants, such as Mary as long as it does not violate due process. However, proof of minimum contacts within California must be met. As stated in Burger King, the requirements for a nonresident defendant, such as Mary, which establish minimum contacts within the forum state must be met and the intent of the actions of Mary must be targeted toward the residents of California and not be incidental....