When addressing the notion of specific jurisdiction the court must determine whether the events that gave rise to the lawsuit were sufficient to constitute at minimum contracts. These minimum contracts are established when either the defendant purposefully directs their activities to the state and or the defendant has purposefully availed themselves to the benefits of the state. The argument of the defendant “has an ongoing contractual relationship with a sales training company located in California, pursuant to which the California company provides consulting services on an as-needed basis. Services were provided on eight occasions in 2002.” This fact pattern holds similar to one of International Shoe. The contact sales training company could
…show more content…
The facts above stated that the defendant “maintains an internet website that is accessible from California—indeed, it is accessible worldwide. The website includes a partial listing of the dealership's inventory and invites potential customers to contact the dealership by email, by telephone, or in person to discuss the cars available for sale; it has no other interactive features.” Due to the similar fact patterns this could would hold the same ruling as the court of Abdouch v. Lopez. Abdouch held that a website that is in the middle of interactive and passive will not establish minimum contracts. Overall, the plaintiff case for establishing minimum contacts rest attaching in personam jurisdiction to the agents within the state. The court takes the analyze of specific jurisdiction one step further. If or once minimum contracts are establish the court will consider 5 factors: 1. Is there a burden on the defendant; 2. Does the forum state’s interest in adjudicating dispute; 3. Does the plaintiff has a interest in obtaining relief; 4. Is there interstate system’s interest in the efficient resolution of disputes;
The facts above stated that the defendant “maintains an internet website that is accessible from California—indeed, it is accessible worldwide. The website includes a partial listing of the dealership's inventory and invites potential customers to contact the dealership by email, by telephone, or in person to discuss the cars available for sale; it has no other interactive features.” Due to the similar fact patterns this could would hold the same ruling as the court of Abdouch v. Lopez. Abdouch held that a website that is in the middle of interactive and passive will not establish minimum contracts. Overall, the plaintiff case for establishing minimum contacts rest attaching in personam jurisdiction to the agents within the state. The court takes the analyze of specific jurisdiction one step further. If or once minimum contracts are establish the court will consider 5 factors: 1. Is there a burden on the defendant; 2. Does the forum state’s interest in adjudicating dispute; 3. Does the plaintiff has a interest in obtaining relief; 4. Is there interstate system’s interest in the efficient resolution of disputes;