29 Cal. App. 5th 359
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Mariana (California resident) filed a San Diego paternity and child support petition naming David (Connecticut resident) as father; service by certified mail to Connecticut.
- Mariana alleged a long on‑and‑off relationship; conception occurred in Nebraska during a 2016 meeting; child born and residing in California.
- David declared he never lived or was domiciled in California; had sporadic business trips to California and met Mariana on a few occasions in 2016, but conception occurred out of state.
- Trial court relied on (1) prior sexual relations including a 2003 pregnancy/miscarriage and (2) 2016 visits to California to conclude California had specific jurisdiction under Family Code §5700.201(a)(8).
- David moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction; Court of Appeal issued alternative writ after accepting the matter for review and stayed trial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mariana) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California has specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident father in paternity/support action | David knew Mariana was a California resident and knowingly directed conduct at her; foreseeable that any child would be raised in California, so effects connect him to forum | David lacked sufficient forum contacts; knowledge of plaintiff’s residence and foreseeability of effects are insufficient—must be defendant's own suit‑related contacts with forum | Held: No. Specific jurisdiction denied; plaintiff’s forum contacts cannot be imputed to defendant under Walden; David’s suit‑related contacts with CA were too few and remote |
| Whether past sexual relations (including 2003 miscarriage) can support jurisdiction | Prior intercourse and pregnancy show continuing contacts tied to litigation, supporting catchall jurisdictional basis | Past contacts are speculative, remote, and unrelated to this paternity claim | Held: Past decade‑old contacts insufficient and speculative; trial court erred to rely on 2003 pregnancy |
| Whether David’s sporadic business trips to California create general or specific jurisdiction | Mariana argued trips and overnight stays connect David to CA | David’s trips were not continuous/systematic for general jurisdiction and unrelated to the paternity claim for specific jurisdiction | Held: No general jurisdiction; business trips insufficient for specific jurisdiction because not meaningfully related to the controversy |
| Whether due process permits haling a nonresident into CA based on plaintiff‑centered effects test | Mariana: effects test applies because injury/effects are felt in CA where child lives | David: Walden requires defendant‑focused contacts; plaintiff’s forum ties alone cannot establish jurisdiction | Held: Walden controls—jurisdiction requires defendant’s own contacts with forum; plaintiff’s residence/foreseeability not enough |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal‑jurisdiction requires defendant’s own forum‑contacts; plaintiff’s connections insufficient)
- Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) (limited due process in family support context; defendant did not purposefully avail)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test where defendants expressly aimed conduct at forum)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts/fair play standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability limits)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires contacts rendering defendant "at home")
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (1996) (California long‑arm and specific‑jurisdiction analysis)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (2002) (express‑aiming requirement for effects test)
- Bartlett v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.3d 72 (1978) (paternity: causing pregnancy out‑of‑state did not subject nonresident to CA jurisdiction)
- Burdick v. Superior Court, 233 Cal.App.4th 8 (2015) (post‑Walden rejection of jurisdiction based on targeting a plaintiff who lives in forum)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (post‑Walden: focus on defendant’s own contacts, not plaintiff’s forum ties)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (need connection between forum and specific claims)