The second part of the effects test requires that the defendant's conduct be expressly aimed at the forum. "'[S]omething more' than mere foreseeability [is required] in order to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction," and that “something more” means conduct expressly aimed at the forum.
The maintenance of a passive website alone cannot satisfy the express aiming prong. It is equally clear, however, that “operating even a passive website in conjunction with ‘something more’ — conduct directly targeting the forum — is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.” Regardless of whether a case involves the Internet, the question remains whether the defendant's conduct was expressly aimed at the forum.
"Express aiming is a concept that in the jurisdictional context hardly defines itself." This much, however, is clear: “the [express aiming] requirement is satisfied when the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.”
- See Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006) (full-text).
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 805 (9th Cir. 2004) (full-text).
- See Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1156 (“We now conclude that ‘something more’ is what the Supreme Court described as ‘express aiming’ at the forum state.”).
- See Holland America Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007)(full-text)(“We consistently have held that a mere web presence is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.”); Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1158 (“[W]e reject . . . any contention that a passive website constitutes express[ ] aiming.”).
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002)(full-text).
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000)(full-text).