Opinion ID: 1400494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fair Play and Substantial Justice, a.k.a. Reasonableness

Text: If the District Court finds that the first two prongs are satisfied, it must consider whether minimum requirements inherent in the concept of `fair play and substantial justice' may defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477-78, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Although there is a strong presumption of reasonableness if purposeful availment exists, Dole Food, 303 F.3d at 1117, courts must still consider reasonableness as a separate factor. This is a heavily fact-based inquiry. California has identified seven factors that affect reasonableness, none of which are determinative: (1) the extent of the defendants' purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. Harris Rutsky, 328 F.3d at 1132 (citing Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487-88 (9th Cir.1993)). Most of these factors cannot be resolved without factfinding from the District Court. For example, the District Court might wish to consider the second factor in light of the statements throughout White's briefs that it is extremely burdensome for a small business in New Jersey with no California connections (aside from, perhaps, those created through its dealings with BBI) to litigate in California. To decide the fifth factor, the District Court should focus on the location of the evidence and witnesses. Harris Rutsky, 328 F.3d at 1133. If most of the evidence and witnesses are located in New Jersey, where the alleged infringement occurred, this factor weighs against personal jurisdiction in California.