Minimum Contacts in California for Jurisdiction Purposes

The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment holding that the defendants had sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction over the defendants. The Plaintiff, a California resident, sued a Nevada based defendant hotel chain for overcharging for the Plaintiff's hotel bill. The defendant moved for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants’ motion, holding that the defendants did not have sufficient contacts with the State of California to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, reversed this finding, and stated that the defendants had sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals Court ruling and concluded that the defendants’ Website and other promotional activities conducted in California established sufficient contacts with the State necessary to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

The following questions have been addressed in this article:

Who are the parties in this case?
What is the factual background of the case?
What are the issues at bar in this case?
What did the court hold in this case?
What is the significance of this case?

Continue...

Facebook Twitter RSS