Opinion ID: 1185853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether plaintiff's cause of action arises from defendant's forum-related activities

Text: Plaintiff's cause of action is for wrongful death to her husband. Her action alleges a specific instance of negligent conduct in the operation of a motor vehicle on a Nevada highway. Her cause of action in no sense arises from the fortuitous fact that defendant has been engaged in a continuous course of conduct in California. Defendant's continuous activity within California is relevant only to determining whether he is sufficiently present within the state to support an assertion of general jurisdiction. But the majority concedes defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction within California. The remaining issue then is whether defendant is subject to jurisdiction limited to this cause of action. As noted above, the appropriate test for limited jurisdiction focuses upon the nexus between the cause of action at issue and defendant's activities within the forum. The connection between plaintiff's cause of action and the fact that defendant has entered California twice a month for seven years is not shown by the majority, the latter fact being irrelevant to whether defendant was negligent in Nevada. Equally irrelevant is the fact that [h]e was not only bringing goods into California for a local manufacturer, but he intended to receive merchandise here for delivery elsewhere. [1] The only conceivable connection between plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's activity inside California is that defendant was rolling toward (and plaintiff away from) its border. In this slight sense, the accident arguably arose from defendant's business in the state. However, the majority cites  and research has revealed  no authority supporting the conclusion that such a tenuous connection is sufficient to justify assertion of personal jurisdiction. In fact, the very decisions upon which the majority relies suggest the opposite. Every decision cited by the majority in which an exercise of limited jurisdiction was upheld is one in which the cause of action arose from or was substantially related to defendant's activity within the forum state itself. [2] In the case at issue, every event relevant to plaintiff's cause of action occurred in Nevada. To the extent decisions cited by the majority suggest a single rule, it is one that requires the cause of action relate in some manner to activity defendant has taken within the forum. The application of this rule to the facts at issue requires denial of California jurisdiction.