The opinion
REYNOSO, J.
I dissent.
California has chosen to permit its courts to exercise the broadest possible jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10; Michigan Nat. Bank v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 823 ].) Phelps’ choice of a California forum should be respected if consistent with the Constitution of California and that of the United States.
In determining whether Stanley’s California activities are sufficient to provide jurisdiction over Stanley in California, we must consider the quality and nature of those activities in relation to this particular cause of action. I conclude that it is fair to provide jurisdiction in the California courts. (See Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 113 , 458 P.2d 57 ].)
*452 Stanley’s contacts with California have been considerable. It is true that Stanley is an Iowa corporation which maintains no office or place of business in California, has never had a certificate of authority to transact business in California, maintains no bank account or other assets in California and does not maintain a telephone listing in this state. Nonetheless, Stanley has been active in California for some time. In 1964 and 1967 Stanley performed turbine tests and design modification for four hydro-electric power plants for Ets-Hokin Corporation in Auburn, California. In 1968 Stanley contracted to perform a turbine test for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San Francisco, but the contract was cancelled before performance. In 1974 Stanley performed consultation work in Iowa for Hahn-Newman Development Corporation, a California corporation, for its Iowa shopping center. Pacific Gas and Electric and Hahn-Newman contacted Stanley in Iowa for this work. Stanley routinely files federal government forms with California-based federal agencies so that Stanley can solicit federal engineering jobs. Stanley rendered services in coninection with a diesel plant extension in Alaska, the contract being awarded out of the naval facility in San Bruno, California.
The record discloses further Stanley activity despite the fact that severe competition usually proscribes Stanley from seeking business in California. More than 10 years prior to this action Stanley did design work in the Philippines naval base, the contract being awarded out of Sari Francisco. In addition, at that time, Stanley did cost estimates for the Navy in San Diego. Stanley also performed four turbine tests for the California Department of Water Resources after being contacted in Iowa by the department. A proposal was submitted to Industrial Clean Air, Inc., in Berkeley, California. Stanley did not get the job.
Stanley hires employees from throughout the nation, and admits soliciting employees other than Phelps from California. However, it does not have records on such hiring activities. Stanley has advertised in California newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Examiner, San Jose Mercury-News, Los Angeles Sentinel, and the San Diego Union and Tribune. In addition, Stanley places “business card” advertisements in.professional periodicals distributed in California.
Within the continental United States Stanley has conducted operations in 44 states and the District of Columbia in the past 15 years. It holds itself ready to perform contracts throughout the world, in addition to the *453 United States, with the exception of a few countries. Such world-wide operations are in fact performed.
While the forum-related activity of Stanley is extensive, I agree with the majority that it is insufficient to constitute “doing business” within the state. The extent and character of such activity would not provide a basis for jurisdiction without consideration of the facts surrounding this particular litigation. (See Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 148 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 545 P.2d 264 ].) However, such activity, together with the quality and nature of the activity giving rise to this litigation, must be considered in relation to this particular cause of action. (See Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 898 .)
The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows: Phelps was contacted by Stanley while working in Stockton, California. Phelps was bom in California and had spent his entire life in California until he was recmited by Stanley. The negotiations relative to the contract at issue were conducted by telephone while Phelps was in California and person-to-person in Iowa where Phelps had traveled upon Stanley’s request. The written contract was signed by Phelps in California. The contract called for Stanley to pay air fare to and from Stockton, California, and provided that the point of departure and the point of return was to be Stockton, California. Phelps played no part in opening the negotiations, but was recruited entirely at Stanley’s initiative.
The record shows that Stanley sought out Phelps in California, opened negotiations with him, and agreed to provide transportation to the place of performance of the contract and to return Phelps to California after the contract was performed. When considered together with the fact that Stanley has recmited other employees from California, and has occasional business contacts with this state, such activity in securing the Phelps contract provides a sufficient relation to this state for the assertion of jurisdiction over Stanley in a suit concerning this particular contract. (See Buckner v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 619, 623-624 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 332 ]; see also Martin v. Detroit Lions, Inc. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 472, 475 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 23 ].)
The defendant has engaged in activity of the requisite quality and nature in the forum state and the specific cause of action is sufficiently related to that activity. Thus, the propriety of an assumption of jurisdiction depends upon a balancing of the inconveniences to the defendant in having to defend in the forum state against both the interest *454 of the plaintiff in suing locally and the interrelated interest of the state in assuming jurisdiction. (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 899 .) Factors to be considered in determining whether the forum state is an appropriate place of jurisdiction include the interest of the state in providing a forum for its residents or in regulating the business involved, the relative availability of evidence and the burden of defense and prosecution in one place rather than another, the ease of access to an alternative forum, the avoidance of multiplicity of suits and conflicting adjudications, and the extent to which the cause of action arose out of the defendant’s forum-related activities. (Fisher Governor Co. v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal.2d 222, 225 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 347 P.2d 1 ]; Martinez v. Perlite Institute, Inc. (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 393, 399 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 120 ].)
California has an interest in providing life-long California residents, recruited in California, with a forum in which to bring an action for breach of an employment contract by an out-of-state firm. The burden on Stanley to defend here is not as great as the burden of Phelps to prosecute elsewhere, since Stanley is a large company doing world-wide business while Phelps is an individual with limited resources. These factors indicate that a California forum is appropriate. If Phelps is not allowed to bring his action here, the burden of out-of-state prosecution may prevent his bringing the action anywhere. (See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 , 78 S.Ct. 199 ].)
I would deny the petition for a writ of mandate.
The petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 23, 1978. Bird, C. J., Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.