Kathleen Johnson v. Ubs Ag
20-56253
| 9th Cir. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Kathleen Johnson and Judith Woodward (daughters) sued after their mother, Annabell M. Palmer, wired $4 million from California to UBS in Switzerland for investment and received no return or accounting.
- Claims sounded in contract and tort; case filed in California federal court.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed.
- UBS is a Swiss corporation with principal place of business in Switzerland, but has numerous California offices, over a thousand California employees, and significant California revenue.
- Plaintiffs argued both general jurisdiction (UBS is “at home” in California) and specific jurisdiction (UBS solicited Palmer in California and has extensive California contacts).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, applied the prima facie standard (no evidentiary hearing), and affirmed: no general jurisdiction and no specific jurisdiction because the claim lacked a sufficient connection to UBS’s California contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | UBS is "at home" in CA due to extensive offices, employees, revenue | UBS is a Swiss corp with principal place of business in Switzerland; not "essentially at home" in CA | No general jurisdiction; Daimler standard controls |
| Specific jurisdiction | UBS indirectly solicited Palmer in CA and its continuous CA business supports jurisdiction | Even if UBS does business in CA, Palmer's transfer is unrelated to UBS’s CA contacts | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to show the claim arose out of or related to UBS’s forum contacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) ("at home" standard limits general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to be "at home")
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (specific jurisdiction requires claim to arise out of or relate to defendant’s in‑forum activities)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (no specific jurisdiction for claims unrelated to forum contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and continuing obligations analysis)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional facts when no evidentiary hearing)
- Global Commodities Trading Grp., Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (consider both purposeful availment and direction when tort and contract claims overlap)