Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust New Zealand Ltd.
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 525
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Gilmore Bank and Cho seek to collect a $3.2 million judgment from Cindy Dalrymple.
- They sue Cindy, Sonia (trustee), AsiaTrust NZ Trust, and others for fraudulent transfers to hinder collection.
- AsiaTrust moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Trial court granted AsiaTrust’s motion; plaintiffs appealed.
- Court held California’s specific jurisdiction test is not limited to the Calder effects test and reversed; AsiaTrust subject to jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AsiaTrust is subject to California’s specific jurisdiction | AsiaTrust is connected to California via transfers to CA | AsiaTrust did not target California or plaintiffs | Yes, AsiaTrust subject to specific jurisdiction. |
| Scope of purposeful availment test in tort cases | California’s tests beyond effects apply | Effects test should govern tort-specific cases | Courts may apply multiple tests; not limited to effects. |
| Whether AsiaTrust’s conduct satisfies prongs of purposeful availment | AsiaTrust created continuing obligations and benefited from CA | No targeted actions toward plaintiffs | Yes; conduct satisfies prong one and relatedness. |
| Whether California’s jurisdiction is fair and reasonable | CA interests and efficiency favor CA adjudication | Foreign defendant burden; New Zealand involvement | Jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test; purposeful aiming required in some cases)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2002) (requires express aiming at forum for Calder-type effects)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (tests for purposeful availment; flexible, case-by-case)
- Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1054 (Cal. 2005) (forum contacts need not be directed at the plaintiff)
- Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.4th 423 (Cal. App. 2003) (effects test does not require identifying future victims)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (analyzes minimum contacts and purposeful availment in forum relations)