Sample Answer: # 8(A): (Opposition to Motion)
The court should deny Defendants’ 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
A federal district court exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of a state court in which the district court sits. FRCP 4(k)(1)(A). This directs the court to the state’s long-arm statute. California courts exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or of California. Cal. Code Civ. P. 410.10. This collapses the statutory analysis into the constitutional analysis—the statute is satisfied if the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional.
A court exercises specific jurisdiction when the defendant’s contacts with the forum give rise or relate to the claim; it exercises general jurisdiction when a defendant is subject to suit in a forum on all claims, regardless of connection between in-state activities and the claim. Daimler. Courts exercise general jurisdiction where a defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum—a corporation’s principal place of business and state of incorporation and an unincorporated association’s principal place of business. Daimler. Neither defendant is essentially at home in California—Lufthansa is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Germany; LGBS is an LLC with its principal place of business in New York.
Courts exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum, those contacts give rise or relate to the claim, and maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Ford; Shoe. This test contains three parts: 1) Minimum contacts; 2) relationship ; and 3) traditional notions. If the plaintiff does not have minimum contacts, the court lacks jurisdiction; it need not consider the other elements. World Wide.
Minimum Contacts
A defendant must, through her conduct, purposefully avails itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the state and receiving benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state, such that the defendant can reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that state. Nicastro; World Wide. Courts look for a relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Walden. The defendant’s contacts with the state must be intentional, not random or fortuitous, World Wide, and they must be the result of its conduct, not the conduct of the plaintiff or a third party. Walden.
Plaintiffs bring two claims: Breach of Contract and Disclosure of Private Facts.
A party purposefully avails by entering into a contract with a substantial connection and continuing obligations to the forum. Burger King. This considers every step in the contract—negotiation, execution, performance, and breach. Id. Defendants contracted with plaintiffs—one of whom is a citizen of California—to transport them to California and breached that contract by disclosing their private information during the performance of that contract. The contract is to be interpreted under California law, such that Lufthansa can reasonably anticipate being haled into court in California on a dispute over that contract.. Although the disclosures occurred outside California, that action breached a contract centered around and in California.
Courts apply the “Effects Test” in tort cases involving “tort-out/injury-in”—the tortious act occurs outside the forum state but the injury occurs in the forum. A defendant must intentionally and purposefully direct its conduct at the forum state and the brunt of the harm must be felt there. Walden; Calder. Although the disclosures occurred in Saudi Arabia (from which Defendants sent plaintiff’s private information was sent) and Germany (where Defendants failed to protect the information), the brunt of the harm was felt in California, where Doe is a citizen and where Roe was traveling to. Moreover, plaintiffs attempted to mitigate or prevent the harm by speaking with Lufthansa employees on the flight to California and at the airport in San Francisco; yet defendants disclosed their private information despite those efforts. Lufthansa also failed to have an employee reach out to plaintiffs in California to address their concerns.
A defendant purposefully avails by serving or seeking to serve the forum through sales, service, having sales people and employees, maintaining offices, and conducting other business activity in the forum. At a minimum, Defendants serve the California market. Lufthansa operates regular flights to and from California, maintains airport offices and employees at airports in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and has an agent for service of process.
Contacts Give Rise or Relate to the Claim
Contacts give rise to a claim (or the claim arises from the contacts) when there is a causal relationship between the contacts and the claim—the contacts constitute the proximate cause of the claim or are part of the transaction giving rise to the claim. Ford. Contacts relate to the claim where there is a more attenuated relationship lacking that causal connection. Ford. This may include a longer, but-for chain between the contacts and the events giving rise to the action.
Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the disclosure and failure to protect plaintiffs’ information, all of which formed part of a California-based contract and real-world transaction.
At a minimum, Lufthansa’s business in California relates to the claims. But-for Lufthansa serving California by operating flights there, plaintiffs would not have flown on that airline to California, would not have provided its employees their marital information, and would not have suffered the harm of that disclosure.
Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
It must be reasonable, in a federal system, to make the defendant litigate in a foreign forum. Shoe. The court balances five factors--the burden on the defendant from having to litigate in the forum, the plaintiff’s interest in a convenient forum, the state’s interest in enforcing its laws and providing a remedy, the shared state interests in efficient resolution, and the interstate interests in substantive outcomes. The first three are the most significant. Burger King; World Wide. Where the plaintiff has purposefully availed, the defendant bears the burden of making a “compelling” case that jurisdiction is unreasonable and jurisdiction will be found unreasonable only in extraordinary cases. BK.
Defendants cannot make a compelling case that jurisdiction is unreasonable. Lufthansa is a major international airline that regularly conducts flights into California, with offices in two California airports, and entered into a contract governed by California law. It will not suffer an undue burden litigating in this state. By contrast, plaintiffs reside in California, making it the most convenient forum. And California has a strong interest in providing the forum for an action involving injured Californians and a California-centered contract. And because California law governs the contract claims, it has stronger substantive interests in providing the forum.
