5 Cal. App. 5th 215
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff M. Strasner alleged that after she returned a mobile phone to T‑Mobile in New York, the phone was sent to Touchstone in Texas and a Touchstone employee uploaded a private photograph from the phone to her Facebook, causing emotional distress.
- Strasner sued Brightpoint, BPNA, Touchstone, and Touchstone Acquisition (all non‑California entities and subsidiaries of California parent Ingram Micro) in San Diego after moving back to California; Ingram was also named earlier and did not contest jurisdiction.
- Defendants moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction; they submitted declarations showing none were incorporated or based in California, had offices or significant California operations, or were registered to do business in California at the relevant time.
- Strasner argued general jurisdiction could be imputed from California parent Ingram under an agency (reverse‑agency) theory and that Touchstone was subject to specific jurisdiction because the Facebook post was aimed at her California friends.
- Jurisdictional discovery produced evidence of some corporate integration (consolidated reporting, branding, shared HR/accounting oversight) and limited Touchstone contacts with California (payments to California vendors; one California customer), but no showing Ingram controlled day‑to‑day operations of the subsidiaries or that the Facebook posting targeted California.
- The trial court granted the motion to quash; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding Strasner failed to prove either general or specific jurisdiction over any defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction over nonresident subsidiaries via Imram (reverse agency) | Impute Ingram’s California domicile/contacts to subsidiaries because of integration, consolidated reporting, shared services and branding | Subsidiaries are separate entities; evidence shows only ordinary parent oversight, not pervasive control over day‑to‑day operations | No general jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show agency/alter‑ego control sufficient to impute Ingram’s contacts |
| Specific jurisdiction over Touchstone for Facebook posting (effects test) | Touchstone employee intentionally uploaded photo; majority of plaintiff’s Facebook friends live in California so harm was expressly aimed at California | Posting occurred in Texas; no evidence employee knew posting would target California or that Facebook posting was aimed at California audience | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show purposeful direction at California or that litigation arose from forum‑related activities |
| Use of limited subsidiary contacts (payments, one CA customer) to support specific jurisdiction | These contacts show purposeful availment and, under Bristol‑Myers sliding‑scale, substantively connect to plaintiff’s injury | Even if such contacts existed, plaintiff provided no evidence linking them to the alleged data mishandling in Texas | No jurisdiction; plaintiff did not show the required relatedness between Touchstone’s CA contacts and the alleged injury |
| Reliance on internet/social‑media posting to establish forum contacts | Posting to plaintiff’s Facebook should be treated like mailing to contacts (mostly in CA), so effects test satisfied | Social media posting is not shown to have been targeted at California; plaintiff’s assertions about newsfeed and friend locations lack evidentiary foundation | No jurisdiction; court requires evidentiary proof of targeting, not conclusory assertions about Facebook mechanics |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for due process)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction — "at home" standard)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction principles)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 783 (specific jurisdiction; relatedness/sliding scale)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test for intentional torts targeting forum)
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 262 (effects test; purposeful direction requires targeting and knowledge of forum harm)
- Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 523 (alter‑ego doctrine; unity of interest/ownership)
- BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.4th 421 (agency test — control beyond normal parent oversight required)
- DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, 104 Cal.App.4th 1080 (consolidated reporting, branding, and common officers insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Burdick v. Superior Court, 233 Cal.App.4th 8 (no jurisdiction from nonresident Facebook post absent evidence of targeting)
- ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff, 1 Cal.App.5th 198 (no jurisdiction where online posts were not shown to be targeted at forum)