Opinion

Lake v. Lake

  • 817 F.2d 1416
  • 55 U.S.L.W. 2685
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
May 26, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Wright
On the bench
Boochever, Browning, Wright
Cited by
327 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.6%

stating that the court “has the discretion to take evidence at a preliminary hearing in order to resolve any questions of credibility or fact” and that the plaintiff must establish the facts “by a preponderance of the evidence, just as he would have to do at trial”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that the court “has the discretion to take evidence at a preliminary hearing in order to resolve any questions of credibility or fact” and that the plaintiff must establish the facts “by a preponderance of the evidence, just as he would have to do at trial”
  • holding that personal jurisdiction existed where defendant “took . . . actions for the very purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum state” and where those actions “amount[ed] to more than . . . untargeted negligence”
  • noting that a defendant is not required to have had physical contact with 14 the forum state to be subject to personal jurisdiction there

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,

concurring specially:

I write separately to emphasize the narrowness of today’s holding. Our court’s recent decisions have required “affirmative conduct by the defendant which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state”, Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir.1986), or “affirmative conduct [by the defendant] to deliver [a] product to [the forum state]”, Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir.1986). Actual knowledge that a product will reach the forum state, without more, will not subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction. Id.

In my view, the Lakes on remand must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Taylor deliberately concealed facts before the California courts while intending the ex parte order to be used in Idaho. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 791 , 104 S.Ct. 1482, 1488 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). Then, and only then, are the requirements of Decker Coal and Brand satisfied so that jurisdiction over Taylor exists in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.