Picot v. Weston, 5:12-cv-01939

Background

Picot (California) and Manos worked with Weston (Michigan) to develop an electrolyte for hydrogen fuel cells; dispute arose after Manos and Picot sold the technology to HMR for $35 million.
Weston claims a 2009 oral agreement (formed in Michigan) entitling him to $20,000/month and one-third of profits for development, marketing, and fundraising work performed largely in Michigan.
Weston made two short trips to California at Picot/Manos’s request to assist demonstrations; otherwise his activities and business contacts were centered in Michigan (investors, University of Michigan, meetings).
After learning of the sale and payments, Weston demanded payment and threatened litigation; his communications to HMR/Coats (Ohio) caused HMR to stop payments into out-of-state trusts.
Picot and Manos sued Weston in California state court for (1) declaratory judgment that no oral agreement existed and (2) tortious interference with the HMR contract; Weston removed, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ninth Circuit affirmed: Picot failed to make a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction under both the contract (purposeful availment) and tort (Calder/Walden effects) analyses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Specific jurisdiction over declaratory-contract claim (purposeful availment)	Picot: oral agreement and his California-based performance (seeking buyers/investors) plus Weston’s two California trips create substantial contacts	Weston: agreement formed and performed in Michigan; California trips were incidental and at Picot/Manos’s request; majority of work in Michigan	No jurisdiction — contacts were random/attenuated; Weston did not purposefully avail himself of California’s benefits
Specific jurisdiction over tort claim (intentional interference) — purposeful direction/Calder effects test	Picot: Weston targeted Picot (a California resident) and caused harm to him in California by interrupting payments	Weston: communications were with out-of-state actors (Coats/HMR in Ohio); actions occurred from Michigan and did not target California itself	No jurisdiction — conduct was not expressly aimed at California; injury not meaningfully tethered to forum
Whether plaintiff’s contacts can supply defendant’s forum connection	Picot: his own in-forum performance and contacts should count toward jurisdictional nexus	Weston: plaintiff’s contacts cannot substitute for defendant’s lack of forum contacts (Walden/Burger King)	Court rejects plaintiff-driven test; defendant’s own forum-directed actions required
Pendent personal jurisdiction over related claims	Picot: if one claim supports jurisdiction, other related claims should be heard	Weston: no claim establishes jurisdiction, so none qualify for pendent jurisdiction	No pendent jurisdiction because no underlying specific jurisdiction established

Key Cases Cited

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and contacts analysis in contract cases)
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (jurisdictional focus on defendant’s contacts with forum, not plaintiff’s forum connections)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for purposeful direction in tort cases)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits of general jurisdiction; federal courts follow state long-arm to constitutional limits)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie burden and standards for personal jurisdiction allegations)
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) (contract alone does not establish minimum contacts)
Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (formulation of the Calder effects test in Ninth Circuit jurisdiction analysis)
Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirmative conduct showing purposeful availment)