Opinion ID: 1218154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Framework for Personal Jurisdiction Analysis

Text: We first outline the legal framework for our personal jurisdiction analysis. When no federal statute specifically defines the extent of personal jurisdiction, we look to the law of the state where the district court sitsin this case, Arizona. Arizona's long-arm rule permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the due process clause of the United States Constitution. CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citations and quotation signals omitted). A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant consistent with due process only if he or she has certain minimum contacts with the relevant forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). Unless a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be present in that forum for all purposes, a forum may exercise only specific jurisdictionthat is, jurisdiction based on the relationship between the defendant's forum contacts and plaintiff's claims. The parties agree that general jurisdiction does not exist here; only specific jurisdiction is at issue. We analyze specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test: (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; 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 relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1987)). The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test. If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these prongs, personal jurisdiction is not established in the forum state. Id. (internal citation omitted). On the other hand, if the plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of the first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to `present a compelling case' that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable. Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)). We next elaborate on the three prongs of our personal jurisdiction analysis: (1) purposeful availment and direction; (2) forum-related conduct; and (3) reasonableness.
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).
Under the second prong of our personal jurisdiction analysis, the plaintiff's claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities. In determining whether Menken's claims arise out of Tomerlin's forum-related conduct, the Ninth Circuit follows the `but for' test. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir.2001). Hence, Menken must show that he would not have suffered an injury but for Tomerlin's forum-related conduct.
The third prong examines whether the exercise of the jurisdiction would be reasonable. We consider the following seven factors when making this determination: (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. CE Distrib., 380 F.3d at 1112 (internal citation omitted). With this framework in mind, we turn to Menken's claims against Tomerlin. [4]