Burdick v. Superior Court
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- The case involves defamation claims by Sanderson and Taylor against Burdick, an Illinois resident, and Nerium entities.
- Burdick posted a defamatory message on his publicly accessible Facebook page while in Illinois; plaintiffs allege the statements target them and caused harm in California.
- Plaintiffs sued in Orange County Superior Court; Burdick moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion, applying Calder v. Jones’s effects test to assert jurisdiction.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and, following Walden v. Fiore, held that California may exercise jurisdiction only if Burdick’s conduct was personally directed at California and created a forum-specific connection.
- The court granted the writ in part to allow jurisdictional discovery or, if denied, to quash the summons; Burdick is to recover writ costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California may exercise specific jurisdiction over Burdick. | Burdick’s Facebook posting targeted California residents. | No forum-directed targeting; posting lacked California focus. | No specific jurisdiction based on posting absent express aiming. |
| Does Calder’s effects test apply to Internet defamation against a nonresident? | Effects test supports jurisdiction because harm occurred in California. | Effects alone insufficient without forum-focused targeting. | Effects test requires express aiming toward the forum; not met here. |
| Does Walden v. Fiore supersede Calder/Pavlovich in Internet defamation cases? | Walden’s focus on forum-related contacts supports jurisdiction. | Walden emphasizes defendant’s contacts with the forum themselves, not plaintiff’s location. | Walden’s principles control; mere knowledge of harm to California residents is insufficient. |
| Should the court allow jurisdictional discovery before quashing? | Discovery could reveal forum-related, Burdick-specific contacts. | Discovery unnecessary if jurisdiction lacking on current record. | Writ remands for discovery to develop a full fact record on specific jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects-based jurisdiction requires express aiming at the forum)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (2002) (express aiming required in Calder-inspired analysis)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdiction must arise from defendant’s contacts with the forum, not plaintiff’s contacts)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (California-specific focus or targeting required for internet defamation)
- Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002) (forum focus required for targeting in Calder framework)
- IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) (express aiming/intentional targeting needed along with knowledge of harm)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (requires forum-directed targeting and minimum contacts)