Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'antisemitisme

holding that a cease and desist letter is not in and of itself sufficient to establish personal 9 jurisdiction over the sender of the letter | holding that the purposeful direction test considers all of a defendant’s contacts with the forum, “whether or not those contacts involve wrongful activity by the defendant” | observing that a "United States court constitutionally could not make" an order restricting speech like the French order at issue in that case, valid under French law | noting that the first 20 step “may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the 21 forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some combination 22 thereof.” | analyzing under “effects” test “intentional act” of filing suit in French court that was expressly aimed at California | stating that 22 courts “typically inquire whether a defendant ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of 23 conducting activities’ or ‘consummate[s] [a] transaction’ in the forum, focusing on the 24 activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract.” | stating a purposeful availment inquiry focuses “on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract” | stating court “must 25 evaluate all of defendant’s contacts with forum state” relating to the dispute in question | rejecting any requirement that jurisdictionally 15 relevant effects must be caused by wrongful acts under the Calder effects test | observing 8 that the relevant harm must have been caused by the acts of 9 defendants | finding a 16 cease and desist letter in addition to other contacts with the forum state warranted an 17 exercise of personal jurisdiction | finding a cease and 14 desist letter in addition to other contacts with the forum state warranted an exercise of 15 personal jurisdiction | stating court “must 25 evaluate all of defendant’s contacts with forum state” relating to the dispute in question | rejecting 16 the defendants’ argument that the “Calder [effects test] requires that the actions expressly aimed 17 at and causing harm in California be tortious or otherwise wrongful.” | distinguishing between the conduct that satisfies the “purposeful direction” and the “purposeful availment” tests | explaining general personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant’s contacts with a forum be “so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be present in that forum for all purposes.” | in turn citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) | “[W]e must evaluate all of a defendant’s contacts with the forum state, whether or not those contacts involve wrongful activity by the defendant.” | the “minimum contacts” required for general jurisdiction “are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be ‘present’ in that forum” | “In tort cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant ‘purposefully direct[s] his 8 activities’ at the forum state . . . .” | “If a jurisdictionally sufficient amount of harm is suffered in the forum state, it does not matter that even more harm might have been suffered in another state.” | “Here, the claims against the 4 Swedish doctors could possibly be brought in Sweden. The plaintiff bears the burden of 5 proving the unavailability of an alternative forum.” | “Because the prima facie 19 jurisdictional analysis requires us to accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true, we must adopt 20 [the plaintiff’s] version of events . . . .” | "[T]he 'brunt' of the harm need not be suffered in the forum state. If a jurisdictionally sufficient amount of harm is suffered in the forum state, it does not matter that even more harm might have been suffered in another state.” | “If a jurisdictionally sufficient amount 6 of harm is suffered in the forum state, it does not matter that even more harm might have been 7 suffered in another state.” | Lawsuit filed by the 10 defendants in French court seeking orders directing the plaint