In CA, the statute reaches the constitutional limit. So use Constitutional analysis.
Test - does defendant have such minimum contacts with the forum so that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?
Contact - must result from purposeful availment; foreseeability that D would get sued in this forum.
Fairness - relatedness between the contact and P's claim.
specific personal jurisdiction
where the claim is related to D's contract with the forum
general personal jurisdiction
D must have continuous and systematic ties with the forum.
- so a D with C&S ties with forum may be sued there for a claim that arose anywhere; that is gen person jur. but D with limited ties with the forum can only be sued there for a claim arising from those activities; that is specific jurisdiction.
summary of personal jur
my parents frequently forgot to read children's stories
Minimum contacts - to see this exists, court will look at purposeful availment and foreseeablility
Purposefful availment - whether D purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state.
Foreseeability - D must know or reasonably anticipate that its activities in the forum state render it foreseeable that it may be haled into court there.
fair play & substantial justice - to assess fairness ct will consider (1) relatedness of the claim to the contract, (2) convenience of the forum to D, and (3) the forum state's interest in the outcome.
relatedness of contact and claim - if D engaged in systematic and continuous activity in the forum state, ct could find this activity a sifficient basis for exercising personal jur.
Forum state's interest
CA use fact pleading instead of notice pleading. that means state courts require more detail in pleadings than fed court.
like the fed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
e.g., failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; lack of subject matter jur.
anti-SLAPP motion to strike
legislature has been concerned about strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). these are suits brought to chill the valid exercise of free speech and petition.
D must make a showing that P's cause of action arises from protected activity. D makes this showing then burden shifts to P to show the probability of winning on the merits.
D not supposed to make the motion if P's case is truly in the public interest or on behalf of general public.
require - (1) assertinable class
(2) a well-defined community of interest
in considering whether there is (2), courts will look into whether ...
1. common question predominate
2. representation is adequate
3. class will result in substantial benefit to the parties & court
* unlike fed court, CA no seperate types of calsses
* notice may be given to the class by publication. individual notice is not required.
change of venue (fed rule)
action my be transferred to another dictrict where it "might have been brought." however, before the action is transferred, transferee ct must have personal jur over the D and subject matter jur over the action.