35 F.4th 1207
9th Cir.2022Background
- Dean Burri, a Florida-based attorney, was retained by the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix (Arizona) to investigate and litigate ERISA-related problems with the Eparchy’s health plan.
- Burri uncovered alleged Plan mismanagement; the Eparchy sued in Arizona federal court; some Plan administrators allegedly sought to stifle the suit and have Burri removed.
- William Skurla (Pittsburgh), Richard Burnett (Passaic), and Milan Lach (Parma) allegedly communicated defamatory statements by email, phone, in-person meetings, and to third parties (some communications reached Arizona), urging the Phoenix Eparchy to fire Burri and drop the Arizona suit; communications ultimately reached the Papal Nuncio and led to withdrawal of the suit and termination of Burri’s contract.
- Burri sued the bishops and their eparchies in Arizona for defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Burri sought jurisdictional discovery.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied jurisdictional discovery; the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding Burri made a prima facie showing under the Calder effects test as to Skurla and requiring the district court to reconsider jurisdiction (and to allow discovery as appropriate) for the other defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder "purposeful direction" test | Burri: defendants intentionally directed defamatory communications at Arizona and targeted an Arizona contract and lawsuit, causing forum harm | Defs: statements targeted Burri's career, not Arizona; Walden means defendants lacked forum contacts and residency alone is insufficient | Court: Calder controls; Skurla purposefully directed acts at Arizona; prima facie showing met; remanded to complete jurisdictional analysis |
| Whether defendants knew or should have known harm would be suffered in Arizona | Burri: under Keeton/Calder, harm occurs where defamatory material circulates; defendants intended consequences in Arizona (undermine Arizona contract/suit) | Defs: Burri is a Florida resident, so harm occurred in Florida, not Arizona | Court: rejected defendants; Keeton and Brainerd show harm in forum where statements circulated; knowledge prong satisfied |
| Whether Walden defeats jurisdictional allegations | Burri: distinguishable—Calder-type conduct created contacts with Arizona and had an Arizona focus | Defs: no direct forum activity by defendants (no travel/contacts); Walden requires defendant contacts with forum | Court: distinguished Walden from Calder facts; communications aimed at Arizona suffice to establish purposeful direction |
| Whether denial of jurisdictional discovery was proper | Burri: limited targeted discovery into travel and communications needed to establish Burnett/Lach contacts with Arizona | Defs: discovery unnecessary because jurisdiction absent | Court: vacated denial; ordered remand so district court can permit appropriate jurisdictional discovery and consider amendment if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (Calder effects test: intentional act expressly aimed at forum causing foreseeable forum harm can establish purposeful direction)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (defamation causes reputational injury in forum where statement circulates)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (personal-jurisdiction inquiry focuses on defendant’s contacts with the forum, not plaintiff’s connections)
- Brainerd v. Governors of Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989) (acts performed to have consequences in forum state suffice to establish purposeful direction)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (Calder/purposeful-direction framework governs tort-based specific jurisdiction)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (articulating Calder/prima facie showing principles)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts before discovery)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction)