# Lake v. Lake

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 26, 1987 · 817 F.2d 1416

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950160

## Case

- **Full name:** Scott Alan LAKE and Cathy Lake, husband and wife, and Scott Alan Lake as Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of the Minor Child Brian Robert Lake v. Diane Marie LAKE, now known as Diane Marie Klymciw, Steven C. Taylor, Attorney at Law
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 26, 1987
- **Citations:** 817 F.2d 1416; 55 U.S.L.W. 2685
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Boochever, Browning, Wright
- **Cited by:** 327 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950160

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- 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”
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8950160. Public record. Not legal advice.