Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s suit against an Ohio automobile dealership for lack of personal jurisdiction in California. The court held that the dealership’s Ohio newspaper advertisements, which used Schwarzenegger’s image without permission, did not establish general jurisdiction and were not expressly aimed at California under the Calder effects test. The opinion explains the distinction between purposeful availment and purposeful direction in specific-jurisdiction analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether California courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Fred Martin based on its purchases, contractual choice-of-law provisions, California service providers, consulting relationships, and Internet website.
- Whether California courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Fred Martin based on the Ohio advertisement and its alleged injury to Schwarzenegger in California.
- Whether Fred Martin's conduct satisfied the Calder effects test's express-aiming requirement for purposeful direction.
Holdings
- Fred Martin's contacts with California did not constitute continuous and systematic business contacts approximating physical presence, so California lacked general personal jurisdiction over Fred Martin.
- Fred Martin was not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because its Ohio advertisement was not expressly aimed at California under the Calder effects test.
- Fred Martin committed an intentional act when it placed the advertisement in the Akron Beacon Journal, but that fact alone did not establish purposeful direction toward California.
Key quotations
“The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the test.” (802)
“Calder cannot stand for the broad proposition that a foreign act with foreseeable effects in the forum state always gives rise to specific [personal] jurisdiction.” (805)
“It may be true that Fred Martin’s intentional act eventually caused harm to Schwarzenegger in California, and Fred Martin may have known that Schwarzenegger lived in California. But this does not confer jurisdiction, for Fred Martin’s express aim was local.” (807)
Factual background
Schwarzenegger, a California resident and movie star, alleged that Fred Martin, an Ohio automobile dealership, used a recognizable photograph of him as the Terminator without permission in a full-page advertisement published five times in the Akron Beacon Journal. The advertisement promoted Fred Martin's Ohio dealership and was not circulated outside Ohio. Fred Martin had no operations, employees, advertising, or known sales in California, although it had various business contacts with California and maintained an Internet website accessible there.
Procedural history
Schwarzenegger filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Fred Martin and Zimmerman & Partners Advertising, alleging six state-law causes of action arising from Fred Martin's unauthorized use of his image in an Ohio newspaper advertisement. The defendants removed the action to federal district court in California. The district court granted Fred Martin's Rule 12(b)(2) motion and dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction; Schwarzenegger timely appealed, while Zimmerman was not a party to the appeal.