Opinion ID: 1218154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purposeful Availment and Direction

Text: The proper application of the first prong is contested in this case. This prong includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some combination thereof. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Yahoo! Inc. outlined the contours of purposeful availment and direction in tort and contract cases: We have typically treated purposeful availment somewhat differently in tort and contract cases. In tort cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant purposefully directs his activities at the forum state, applying an effects test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984)). By contrast, in contract cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities or consummates a transaction in the forum, focusing on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Id. (brackets omitted). Menken argues that the district court erred by failing to employ the effects test for tort claims as set forth in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). In Calder, a California-based entertainer sued for an allegedly defamatory article published by defendants. The article had been written and edited in Florida, and the defendants had few contacts with California. The Court upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction in California because the defendants knew that the article would have an effect there. Calder held that the defendants had not engaged in mere untargeted negligence; rather, their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. Calder, 465 U.S. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (brackets omitted). We construe Calder 's effects test to impose three requirements: the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state. Yahoo! Inc., 433 F.3d at 1206. In a specific jurisdiction inquiry, we consider the extent of the defendant's contacts with the forum and the degree to which the plaintiff's suit is related to those contacts. A strong showing on one axis will permit a lesser showing on the other. A single forum state contact can support jurisdiction if the cause of action arises out of that particular purposeful contact of the defendant with the forum state. Id. at 1210 (internal citation, quotation signals, ellipses, and brackets omitted).