1

Filed 3/8/21 Yue v. Yang CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DONGXIAO YUE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

WENBIN YANG,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A159145

 (Contra Costa County Super.

 Ct. No. MSC 1601118)

California resident Dongxiao Yue (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against 

several defendants, including Canadian resident Wenbin Yang, for unfair 

competition and defamation. The trial court granted Yang’s motion to quash

service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Code 

Civ. Proc., § 418.10.)

We reverse. We conclude plaintiff satisfied his burden of

demonstrating Yang was subject to specific jurisdiction in California and 

that Yang failed to show the exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff lives in Northern California. He is a software developer. 

Plaintiff established and moderated a “Chinese language online community 

website called Zhen Zhu Bay” (ZZB). Many of ZZB’s bloggers and readers are 

California residents. Muye Liu is a California resident. He owns and 

operates a competing website, Yeyeclub.com (Yeyeclub). Yang posted on both 

websites. He lives in Canada.

A.

Complaint

Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in Contra Costa County in propria 

persona against several defendants, including Yang and Liu, alleging claims 

for unfair competition and defamation. The gist of the complaint was that

defendants engaged in unlawful business practices and defamed plaintiff to 

destroy ZZB and plaintiff’s reputation.

The complaint alleged Yang posted on ZZB and Yeyeclub. Plaintiff 

removed Yang’s “sexually explicit, violent and insulting” posts from ZZB. 

Liu, however, encouraged Yang to continue posting on Yeyeclub. Thereafter, 

Yang began making “defamatory attacks” on plaintiff on Yeyeclub. According 

to the complaint, Yang and Liu worked together to attack plaintiff on 

Yeyeclub and “induced many ZZB bloggers to join” Yeyeclub.

On Yeyeclub, Yang threatened to “bully Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s backyard 

in California and openly challenged Plaintiff to sue him in California” so that

Yang “could leave a glorious record in . . . American legal history.” In another 

post, Yang announced that he would travel to San Francisco to carry out a 

meeting “as originally planned.” The post contained email communications 

1 We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issue on appeal, 

disregarding references to, and evidence of, other lawsuits filed by plaintiff.
3

between Yang and others which referred to plaintiff by name. Later, Yang 

posted that he “arrived in California” and urged his “collaborators” to come to 

“the meeting.” Yang also asserted plaintiff had “violated [a] court order” and 

that plaintiff’s “family was nearly driven to the streets.” In another post, 

Yang accused plaintiff of stealing his information—and committing 

burglary—using a “Trojan horse virus.” Yang also published a fax he sent

plaintiff asserting that plaintiff had attacked him with an Internet virus.

The complaint alleged California had personal jurisdiction over Yang

because he had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. According 

to the complaint, Yang intentionally directed his defamatory messages at 

plaintiff in California, and intended to, and did, cause harm there.

B.

Motion to Quash 

Yang moved to quash service of summons and complaint in propria 

persona, arguing California lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he 

lived in Canada and lacked minimum contacts with California. Yang also 

argued the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable because he lived in 

Canada.

In a supporting declaration, Yang averred he had been a Canadian 

resident for over twenty years. He asserted he had no contact with California

and had not directed any advertising, including on the Internet, to California 

residents. Yang also averred, on information and belief, that Yeyeclub.com 

was an online discussion forum where users interacted with each other 

anonymously and that the website’s content “was not directed exclusively at 

California residents.” Finally, Yang testified the statements at issue in the 

lawsuit were made by “anonymous posters.” Yang did not, however, deny 

making the statements.
4

Plaintiff’s opposition asserted California had specific jurisdiction over 

Yang. Plaintiff argued Yang purposefully availed himself of forum benefits 

by intentionally aiming his defamatory comments at California, where many 

of Yeyecub’s bloggers and readers resided. Plaintiff also noted Yang’s posts 

on Yeyeclub mentioned traveling to—and harming plaintiff in—California. 

Additionally, plaintiff argued his claims arose out of Yang’s contacts with 

California and that exercising jurisdiction over Yang was reasonable. 

Finally, plaintiff requested jurisdictional discovery before the court ruled on 

the motion to quash.

In a detailed declaration, plaintiff averred Yang posted defamatory 

information about him on Yeyeclub. Although the posts did not use Yang’s 

name, plaintiff provided a detailed explanation of how he was able to 

identify Yang as the author of the posts. The declaration described Yang’s 

posts—which appeared on the “front pages of the website”—and attached

numerous documents, including the posts. In addition to posts identified in 

his complaint, plaintiff also cited Yang’s post that asserted plaintiff’s criminal 

liability under “California Penal Code Section 461(1).” Yang posted that he 

“ ‘would go to California State and bully Dr. Yue in his physical backyard’ ” 

and invited Yue to sue him in California: “ ‘I always stated that I would 

destroy you the shyster in U.S. federal court . . . . I want to go to California 

State for a tour, with your support, what a pleasure.’ ” Plaintiff further 

averred that Yang knew plaintiff lived in California, and that California

“residents . . . read Yang’s defamatory statements.” The declaration also 

described Yang’s direct correspondence with plaintiff, which included faxing 

plaintiff and posting the fax on Yeyeclub.

In reply, Yang argued posting comments on the Internet did not 

establish personal jurisdiction, particularly where “no single posting” was 
5

made under his name. Yang also claimed plaintiff failed to establish the 

posts were aimed at California or had a California audience. He

characterized plaintiff’s assertions as speculative, unsupported by 

“corroborating evidence,” and based on hearsay, but he did not object to 

plaintiff’s declaration. In a supplemental declaration, Yang averred the 

Yeyeclub posts were not made “with the name of Yang.” He also denied ever 

visiting California.

C.

Order Granting the Motion to Quash

The court granted the motion. First, it determined there was no basis 

for general jurisdiction over Yang, a Canadian resident. Next, and relying on 

Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8 (Burdick), the court

concluded there was no basis for specific jurisdiction over Yang because the 

interaction between plaintiff and Yang “took place on the Internet” and 

posting information on websites did not constitute “ ‘minimum contacts’ ”

with California.

According to the court, plaintiff alleged Yang harmed his reputation by 

publishing injurious postings about him to California residents, but had not 

presented evidence that Yang purposefully availed himself of forum benefits 

by aiming or intentionally targeting his conduct at California or a California 

audience. The court did not specifically address the content of the postings, 

Yang’s alleged visit to California, or plaintiff’s evidence identifying Yang as 

the author of the posts. 

Finally, the court opined that exercising jurisdiction over Yang “would 

not comport with the notion of fair play and substantial justice” because 

plaintiff was “the only link between [Yang] and the forum.” The court did not 

address plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
6

DISCUSSION

I.

General Principles

“ ‘California courts may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident on 

any basis consistent with the federal or state Constitution. [Citation.] To 

comport with federal and state due process, California may only exercise 

jurisdiction when a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state 

to satisfy “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” 

[Citations.] Under the minimum contacts test, we examine the quality and 

nature of a defendant’s action to determine whether requiring him to submit 

to jurisdiction in California is reasonable and fair.’ ” (Zehia v. Superior

Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 543, 551–552 (Zehia).)

When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional 

grounds, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Zehia, supra,

45 Cal.App.5th at p. 552; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 

209–210 (ViaView).) “The plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and 

other competent evidence to carry this burden.” (ViaView, at p. 210.) A 

verified complaint is the functional equivalent of an affidavit. (Evangelize 

China Fellowship, Inc. v. Evangelize China Fellowship (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 

440, 444.) “If the plaintiff meets this burden, ‘it becomes the defendant’s 

burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be 

unreasonable.’ ” (ViaView, at p. 210.)

Where—as here—evidence “ ‘of jurisdictional facts is not in dispute, the 

issue whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction is a legal 

question subject to de novo review.’ ” (ViaView, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 210.) “ ‘ “The ultimate question whether jurisdiction is fair and reasonable
7

under all of the circumstances, based on the facts which are undisputed and

those resolved by the court in favor of the prevailing party, is a legal

determination warranting our independent review.” ’ ” (Ibid.)

II.

California Has Specific Jurisdiction over Yang

“ ‘Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.’ ” (Zehia, 

supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 552.) Here, we consider only whether Yang is 

subject to specific jurisdiction. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over 

a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed 

himself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy relates to, or arises out of, the

defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction 

comports with fair play and substantial justice. (Ibid.) The specific 

jurisdiction analysis focuses on “ ‘ “ ‘the relationship among the defendant, 

the forum, and the litigation.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.)

A. Purposeful Availment

The first element of specific jurisdiction is whether the defendant 

purposefully availed himself of forum benefits. (Zehia, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th

at p. 552.) Courts apply the “ ‘effects test’ ” to determine purposeful 

availment in the defamation context. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 

29 Cal.4th 262, 269.) Under this test, intentional conduct occurring 

elsewhere may give rise to jurisdiction in California where it is calculated to 

cause injury in California. The defendant must expressly aim or target his 

conduct toward California, with the knowledge that his intentional conduct 

would cause harm in the forum. (Id., at pp. 271–273.) 

As the trial court recognized, mere posting of defamatory comments 

on the Internet, even with the knowledge that the plaintiff is in the forum 

state, is not enough to establish specific jurisdiction. (Burdick, supra,
8

233 Cal.App.4th at p. 20.) But specific jurisdiction may be established under 

the effects test where a defendant sends “California-focused” social media 

messages “directly” to California residents “with knowledge the recipients 

[are] California residents” for the alleged purpose of causing reputational 

injury there. (Zehia, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pp. 556–558.)

2

Here, plaintiff’s evidence—his verified complaint and his

uncontradicted declaration—established Yang purposefully availed himself 

of forum benefits. The evidence showed Yang targeted his conduct at 

California: he communicated directly with plaintiff and posted on Yeyeclub, 

a website owned and operated by a California resident that had a California 

audience.

3 Plaintiff also offered competent evidence that Yang’s posts had 

a California focus: Yang threatened to “bully” plaintiff in California and

communicated his plan to travel to San Francisco. Yang also announced that 

he had “arrived in California” and urged his “collaborators” to join him.

Additionally, plaintiff provided evidence that Yang’s posts were 

directed to, and received by, a California audience: plaintiff and other 

California residents “read Yang’s defamatory statements” on Yeyeclub. 

Finally, plaintiff offered evidence that Yang posted on Yeyeclub with the

intent to cause harm in California, where Yang knew plaintiff lived. 

Together, this evidence demonstrated Yang’s “suit-related conduct created 

2 Zehia was decided after the trial court’s decision in this case.

3 In the trial court, Yang averred the Yeyeclub posts were made 

anonymously, but Yang did not deny communicating with plaintiff or posting 

on the website. Thus, for our purposes, the evidence is undisputed that Yang 

made the posts. On appeal, Yang critiques the evidence plaintiff offered in 

opposition to the motion to quash. We disregard these contentions. In the 

trial court, Yang did not object to plaintiff’s evidence and he cannot raise 

an evidentiary objection for the first time on appeal. (Crouch v. Trinity

Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1020.)
9

a substantial connection between [Yang] and California.” (Zehia, supra,

45 Cal.App.5th at pp. 556–558.)

In granting the motion to quash, the trial court relied on Burdick, a 

defamation case arising out of the posting of allegedly defamatory material 

on Facebook. There, a group of physicians and others (collectively, bloggers)

published entries on an Internet blog questioning the safety and efficacy of 

a skin care product. In response, a representative of the skin care company 

made a public Facebook post suggesting the bloggers had criminal histories. 

(Burdick, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 14–15.) The bloggers filed a lawsuit 

in California against the skin care representative, an Illinois resident, 

alleging several torts, including defamation. (Id. at pp. 13–14.) The trial 

court denied the defendant’s motion to quash service of summons, concluding 

California had specific jurisdiction under the “ ‘ “effects” ’ test.” (Id. at p. 16.)

The Burdick court reversed. (Burdick, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 16, 30.) It held the defendant’s suit-related conduct—the public posting 

of an allegedly defamatory statement on social media—did not create 

a “substantial connection” with California sufficient to confer specific 

jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 25.) The court noted the defendant published the post 

from Illinois and that there was no evidence the social media page “had 

a California audience” or “a California focus.” (Ibid.) Burdick held that 

posting statements about a person on social media or the Internet, “while

knowing that person resides in the forum state, is insufficient in itself to

create the minimum contacts necessary to support specific personal

jurisdiction in a lawsuit arising out of that posting. Instead, it is necessary

that the nonresident defendant not only intentionally post the

statements . . . but that the defendant expressly aim or specifically direct
10

his or her intentional conduct at the forum, rather than at a plaintiff who

lives there.” (Id. at p. 13.)

This case bears some resemblance to Burdick because the defendants in 

both cases posted the allegedly defamatory material online. But that is 

where the similarity between this case and Burdick ends. Unlike the 

defendant in Burdick, Yang communicated directly with plaintiff. 

Additionally, and in contrast to the Facebook post in Burdick, which did not 

mention the bloggers by name, Yang’s posts on Yeyeclub mentioned plaintiff

by name and threatened to harm him in California. The posts repeatedly 

referred to California, suggested California criminal liability, and threatened 

a California visit by Yang. Lastly, in Burdick, there was no evidence the skin 

care representative’s social media page “had a California audience.”

(Burdick, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 25.) Here, plaintiff offered 

uncontradicted evidence that Yeyeclub had a California audience, and that 

California residents read the allegedly defamatory postings. 

Plaintiff has thus shown more than a mere posting on the Internet 

combined with a defendant’s awareness that his conduct might cause injury 

in California. Rather, he has shown that Yang targeted his postings at 

plaintiff, emphasized the California connection, and threatened to come to 

California, with an awareness that Californians would be in the audience. 

Plaintiff has established the purposeful availment element.

B. Relatedness Between the Controversy and Forum Contacts

The second element for specific jurisdiction is whether the controversy 

relates to, or arises out of, the defendant’s contacts with the forum. (ViaView, 

supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 216.) There must be “ ‘an affiliation between the 

forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an 

occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the 
11

State’s regulation.’ [Citation.] ‘[S]pecific jurisdiction is confined to 

adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy 

that establishes jurisdiction.’ ” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

(2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1780.) This element is easily satisfied here. The

verified complaint alleged Yang’s defamatory posts on Yeyeclub injured 

plaintiff’s business and his reputation in California. On this record, the 

undisputed evidence demonstrates there is an “adequate link” between 

plaintiff’s claims and Yang’s contacts with California. (Id. at p. 1781.) Yang 

does not persuasively argue otherwise.

C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice 

Because plaintiff established facts justifying the exercise of specific 

jurisdiction, Yang had the burden to show “the assertion of jurisdiction would 

be unfair or unreasonable.” (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co.

Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 563.) Yang “has not made the requisite 

showing.” (Id. at p. 563.)

“An otherwise valid exercise of personal jurisdiction ‘is presumed 

to be reasonable.’ [Citation.] Therefore, [the] defendant ‘must present 

a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would 

render jurisdiction unreasonable.’ ” “A determination of reasonableness rests 

upon a balancing of interests: the relative inconvenience to defendant of 

having to defend an action in a foreign state, the interest of plaintiff 

in suing locally, and the interrelated interest the state has in assuming 

jurisdiction. [Citation.] The factors involved in the balancing process include 

the following: ‘the relative availability of evidence and the burden of defense 

and prosecution in one place rather than another; the interest of a state 

in providing a forum for its residents or regulating the business 

involved; . . . and the extent to which the cause of action arose out 
12

of defendant’s local activities.’ ” (Integral Development Corp. v.

Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 576, 591, italics added (Integral 

Development).) 

To be sure, there is some burden associated with requiring Yang,

a Canadian resident, to litigate this case in California. (Integral 

Development, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 592.) But that is only one factor 

in assessing reasonableness, and that factor does not weigh heavily in Yang’s 

favor because there is no evidence in the record that Yang would be at 

a “ ‘severe disadvantage’ in comparison to his opponent” due to his location. 

(Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462, 478; Integral Development, at 

p. 592 [burden on foreign defendant in litigating case in California did not 

establish exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable].)

Other factors weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction. For example, 

evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims will likely be found in California, and 

Yang has not identified any witnesses or evidence located elsewhere. 

(Integral Development, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 592.) California also “has 

a manifest interest in providing a local forum for its residents to redress 

injuries inflicted by out-of-state defendants.” (Id. at p. 591.) Finally, in

targeting California with his conduct, Yang could fairly expect to have been 

held “answerable on a claim related to those activities.” (Keeton v. Hustler 

Magazine, Inc. (1984) 465 U.S. 770, 776.)

Given plaintiff’s “showing of the requisite minimal contacts with 

California, the nexus between those contacts and the claims raised in the 

lawsuit, and the allegations in the complaint that [Yang] has committed torts 

causing effects in California,” we conclude Yang “has not met his burden of 

presenting a ‘compelling’ case that jurisdiction would be unreasonable under 

all of the circumstances.” (Integral Development, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at 
13

p. 593; Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd., supra,

31 Cal.App.5th at p. 565 [defendant failed to make “compelling case” that 

exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable or unfair].) 

We conclude Yang is subject to specific jurisdiction in California. 

Having reached this result, we need not consider whether the court erred by 

failing to consider—and grant—plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.

DISPOSITION

The order granting Yang’s motion to quash service of summons and 

complaint is reversed. The court is ordered to enter a new order denying the 

motion and reinstating the complaint as to Yang. Plaintiff is entitled to 

recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
14

_________________________

Seligman, J.*

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Needham, Acting P. J.

_________________________

Burns, J.

A159145

* Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.