United States Ninth Circuit

In this diversity action alleging various tort and contract claims, the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff is a resident of California and defendant is a resident of Michigan; 2) defendant neither purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California nor expressly aimed his conduct at California; and 3) therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/19/2015
• Published 03/19/2015

Judges

• Tashima

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel