Summary
The en banc Ninth Circuit considered whether a federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction over French associations that obtained interim orders regulating Yahoo!'s website and whether Yahoo!'s declaratory-judgment action was ripe. The court held that personal jurisdiction existed, but a plurality concluded that the action was not ripe. The court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether California could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over French associations whose litigation in France resulted in interim orders directing Yahoo! to take actions affecting its California-based operations.
- Whether Yahoo!'s declaratory-judgment action concerning enforceability of the French interim orders was prudentially ripe.
- Whether the court should reach the abstention issue.
Holdings
- The district court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF because their contacts with California, particularly their procurement of French interim orders directing Yahoo! to act through California-based operations, satisfied the Calder purposeful-direction analysis and were directly related to Yahoo!'s claims.
- A plurality concluded that Yahoo!'s declaratory-judgment action was not prudentially ripe because the record did not establish what further compliance, if any, the French court would require or whether compliance would restrict access by U.S. users.
- The judgment of the district court was reversed and the action was remanded with directions to dismiss without prejudice.
Key quotations
“We take this opportunity to clarify our law and to state that the "brunt" of the harm need not be suffered in the forum state.” (¶ 38)
“We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.” (¶ 121)
Factual background
LICRA and UEJF sued Yahoo! in France after Yahoo!'s websites made Nazi memorabilia and Holocaust-denial or Nazi-apologist materials accessible to users in France. The French court issued interim orders requiring Yahoo! to restrict access from French territory and imposing escalating monetary penalties for noncompliance. Yahoo! later adopted a related hate-speech policy but maintained that it did so independently of the French orders, and it sought a U.S. declaration that the orders could not be recognized or enforced in the United States.
Procedural history
Yahoo! filed a diversity action in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that two interim orders issued by a French court were unrecognizable and unenforceable in the United States. The district court upheld personal jurisdiction, found the case ripe, declined to abstain, and ruled that the First Amendment precluded enforcement in the United States. On en banc rehearing, eight judges concluded that personal jurisdiction existed, three judges concluded that the action was prudentially unripe, and three judges concluded that personal jurisdiction was lacking; the combined votes required dismissal without prejudice.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice.