California courts continue to find ways to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, even when there is little or no dispute that the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court do not permit it.  “Resistance” is probably too strong a word, insofar as it calls up images

By now, the reinvigorated limits on personal jurisdiction, courtesy of the SCOTUS decisions in Bauman and BMS, are old hat. No longer can defendants be dragged into plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions unless they are either at home in such jurisdictions or actually did something relating to a colorable claim there. So goodbye to litigation tourists suing

Personal jurisdiction being a key issue for us here at DDL Blog, we’ve talked a lot about the “minimum contacts” needed to establish jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.  Not many cases, however, analyze the two specific jurisdictional tests for minimum contacts.  That’s likely because in most cases, it doesn’t make a difference whether you use