Bernard Picot v. Dean Weston
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4437
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Picot (California) and Manos (Nevada) developed an electrolyte technology with Weston (Michigan); dispute arose after Picot and Manos sold the technology to HMR for $35 million.
- Weston alleges a 2009–2010 oral agreement (formed in Michigan) obligating him to develop/market the technology in exchange for $20,000/month and one-third of profits; Picot denies the agreement.
- Weston performed most work from Michigan (office, investor contacts, University of Michigan contract); he made two short, reimbursed trips to California at Picot/Manos’s request.
- After learning of the sale, Weston demanded payment and threatened litigation; HMR halted payments into trusts, and Picot/Manos sued Weston in Santa Clara County seeking (1) a declaration that no oral agreement existed and (2) damages for intentional interference with the HMR contract.
- Weston removed to federal court (diversity), moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied transfer as moot; Picot appealed (Manos did not).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California has specific jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment/contract claim | Weston entered an oral agreement that created a substantial connection to California because Picot performed contract duties (soliciting California buyers) and Weston made two trips to CA | Agreement formed in Michigan; Weston performed primarily in Michigan; trips to CA were incidental and at Picot/Manos’s request, not acts purposefully availing Weston of California | No jurisdiction — Weston did not purposefully avail himself of California; contacts were random/attenuated |
| Whether California has specific jurisdiction over the intentional-interference (tort) claim | Weston targeted Picot (a California resident); his threats and communications caused HMR to stop payments, harming Picot in California | Weston’s conduct was directed at out-of-state parties (Coats/HMR in Ohio) from Michigan; harms were not meaningfully tethered to California | No jurisdiction — Weston did not expressly aim conduct at California; plaintiff’s injury alone is insufficient under Walden |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie showing standard for jurisdictional facts when no evidentiary hearing)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdictional analysis focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum state, not contacts with forum residents)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and analysis of prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, and course of dealing)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (federal courts look to due process limits on state-court jurisdiction; distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for purposeful direction in tort cases)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of the effects test quoted and applied)
- Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirmative conduct test for purposeful availment)