Opinion ID: 457776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Summary Judgment in Favor of Kennedy

Text: 69 Peterson contends that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Kennedy. The court concluded that, as a matter of law, Kennedy had insufficient contacts with the State of California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. We review this legal conclusion de novo. 70 Where a defendant has substantial or continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, there is a sufficient relationship between the defendant and the state to support general personal jurisdiction even if the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant's forum activities. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir.1977). Peterson does not suggest that Kennedy had such contacts with the State of California. Rather, Peterson contends that Kennedy was subject to the limited personal jurisdiction of the district court as a result of his purposeful contacts with California which gave rise to the instant cause of action. 71 Lacking sufficient contacts to support general jurisdiction, non-resident defendants may still be subject to limited personal jurisdiction depending on the nature and quality of the defendant's contacts [with the forum] in relation to the cause of action. Id. We have established a tripartite test for determining whether due process allows for the exercise of limited personal jurisdiction in a given case: 72 (1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities. (3) Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. 73 Id. (citations omitted). Each of the three tests must be satisfied to permit a district court to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. 74 Both parties agree that Kennedy's sole contacts with California consisted of a series of telephone calls that he made to Peterson from the union's Washington D.C. office and letters that he sent to a California physician regarding Peterson's injury. The parties disagree, however, as to whether such contacts are sufficient to meet the limited jurisdiction test. 75 Kennedy argues that the nature of his contacts with California were insufficient as a matter of law to enable the district court to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over him. We agree. Both this court and the courts of California 12 have concluded that ordinarily use of the mails, telephone, or other international communications simply do not qualify as purposeful activity invoking the benefits and protection of the [forum] state. Thos. P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional de Produccion de Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1254 (9th Cir.1980); see also Floyd J. Harkness Co. v. Amezcua, 60 Cal.App.3d 687, 692-93, 131 Cal.Rptr. 667, 670 (1976); Interdyne Co. v. SYS Computer Corp., 31 Cal.App.3d 508, 511-12, 107 Cal.Rptr. 499, 501-02 (1973). Such contacts are normally legally insufficient to satisfy the first prong of the Data Disc test. We see no basis for making an exception to the general rule here. We affirm the district court's ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Kennedy.