Opinion ID: 786867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior Ninth Circuit Cases

Text: 27 In addition to Calder itself, Schwarzenegger particularly relies on two prior cases of this circuit that interpret Calder. In Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir.1988), the National Enquirer published false stories about visits by Frank Sinatra, the famous singer, to a Swiss clinic for youth regeneration treatments. Id. at 1192. The clinic and the National Enquirer had made a deal whereby the clinic would supply bogus information about Sinatra to National Enquirer reporters during interviews conducted in Switzerland in return for the publicity it would receive by being featured in the resulting National Enquirer article. Sinatra sued the National Enquirer and the clinic in California state court for misappropriation of his name, likeness, and photograph. The action was removed to federal district court, and the clinic sought to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 28 We applied the three-part Calder effects test, stating: 29 [T]he Clinic has directed its activities at California by using Sinatra's name in an effort to promote its business. The Swiss acts or directions that had a California effect consist of: (1) the misappropriation of the value of Sinatra's name through interviews conducted in Switzerland between Clinic employees and Enquirer reporters, in which the Clinic supplied false information about Sinatra's treatment at the Clinic; (2) the Clinic's California advertising efforts to attract patients; and (3) the Clinic's knowledge of Sinatra's residence in California. 30 Id. at 1195. We noted that the clinic treated many California residents, mounted significant advertising efforts in California apart from the National Enquirer article, and that the clinic's false statements about Sinatra were expressly calculated to cause injury in California. Id. at 1196, 1198. We observed without elaboration that California is the situs of Sinatra's injury. Id. at 1195. 31 We concluded that the misappropriation [of Sinatra's persona] is properly viewed as an event within a sequence of activities designed to use California markets for the [clinic's] benefit. Id. at 1197. Therefore, we 32 conclude[d] that the Clinic, through its pursuit of California clients by advertising, part of which involved the misappropriation of Sinatra's name in order to benefit the Clinic through the implied endorsement, possessed sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over it. 33 Id. at 1198; accord Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir.2002) (finding purposeful availment of Nevada under Calder where defendant specifically targeted consumers in Nevada by running radio and print advertisements in Las Vegas) (internal quotation marks omitted). 34 In Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir.2000), Bancroft & Masters was a small California company that registered the Internet domain name www.masters.com. Augusta National, a Georgia corporation and the host of the famous Masters golf tournament, allegedly sent a letter to the official domain name registrar in Virginia, challenging Bancroft & Masters's use of www.masters.com. Bancroft & Masters brought suit against Augusta National in federal district court in California for a declaratory judgment to establish its ownership of the domain name. In response, Augusta National successfully moved the district court to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. 35 Bancroft & Masters appealed, and we applied the Calder effects test. We observed that Calder cannot stand for the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific [personal] jurisdiction. Id. at 1087; see Calder, 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (The mere fact that [defendants] can `foresee' that the [allegedly libelous] article will be circulated and have an effect in [the forum state] is not sufficient for an assertion of[specific personal] jurisdiction.); Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (Although it has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts there when policy considerations so require, the Court has consistently held that this kind of foreseeability is not a `sufficient benchmark' for exercising personal jurisdiction. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. 559) (footnote omitted)). 36 We construed Calder to require something more than mere foreseeability in order to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction in California over the Georgia defendant. Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1087. The intentional act committed by Augusta National was its drafting and mailing of a letter from Georgia to Virginia. The harm was felt by Bancroft & Masters in California. We held that in sending this letter Augusta National had expressly aimed its conduct at California — even though the letter was actually sent to Virginia — because it individually targeted [Bancroft & Masters in California]. Id. at 1088 (emphasis added); accord California Software Inc. v. Reliability Research, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 1356, 1361 (C.D.Cal.1986) (finding personal jurisdiction proper where plaintiffs' complaint was that defendants intentionally and individually targeted them). We therefore reversed the district court and held that a California forum could properly assert jurisdiction over Augusta National for its act in sending the letter to Virginia. 37 To support our holding in Bancroft & Masters, we cited Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir.1998). In Panavision, defendant Dennis Toeppen, a resident of Illinois, had registered the Internet domain name www.panavision.com. Id. at 1318-19.Panavision was plaintiff's registered trademark, and defendant's alleged plan was to obtain money from plaintiff in exchange for the rights to www.panavision.com. In furtherance of his plan, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff in California demanding $13,000 to release his registration of www.panavision.com. Id. at 1323. Instead of paying defendant, Panavision sued him in federal district court in California. We sustained the exercise of personal jurisdiction: 38 Toeppen did considerably more than simply register Panavision's trademarks as his domain names on the Internet. He registered those names as part of a scheme to obtain money from Panavision. Pursuant to that scheme, he demanded $13,000 from Panavision to release the domain names to it. His acts were aimed at Panavision in California, and caused it to suffer injury there. 39 Id. at 1318; see also Cybersell, 130 F.3d at 420 n. 6 (distinguishing Panavision from the facts presented in its case because while both involved a passive Internet website, the latter lacked a proactive extortion scheme).