7404A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS MATTHEW PAVLOVICH,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 of 3 DOCUMENTS MATTHEW PAVLOVICH, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC., Real Party in Interest. No. S100809. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 29 Cal. 4th 262; 58 P.3d 2; 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329; 2002 Cal. LEXIS 7959; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,543; 65 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1422; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11383; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 13223 November 25, 2002, Decided November 25, 2002, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. CV786804. William J. Elfving Judge. Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 409, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 909, 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 623 (6th Dist. 2001). DISPOSITION: Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff corporation sought injunctive relief, alleging defendant foreign resident misappropriated the corporation's trade secrets by posting its program's source code on his Internet Web site. The resident's motion to quash service of process was denied; the California Court of Appeal denied his petition for writ of mandate, finding that he purposefully availed himself of forum benefits under the Calder effects test. The resident appealed. OVERVIEW: On review, the resident contended the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction him based solely on the posting of the corporation's source code on his Internet Web site. In applying the effects test, the supreme court determined that the evidence in the record failed to show that the resident expressly aimed his tortious conduct at or intentionally targeted California. His sole contact with California was the posting of the source code on his Internet Web site, accessible to any person with Internet access; he owned no property, had no telephone listing, and conducted no business in California. Furthermore, the Web site merely posted information and had no interactive features. Accordingly, the resident's alleged conduct in posting a passive Web site on the Internet was not, by itself, sufficient to subject him to jurisdiction in California. As the resident could not have known that his tortious conduct would hurt the corporation in California when the misappropriated code was first posted, his knowledge of the existence of a licensing entity could not establish express aiming at California. OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded. Page 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
CORE TERMS: site, personal jurisdiction, resident, forum state, minimum contacts, livid, movie, technology, picture, posted, trade secrets, purposefully, purposeful, centered, posting, aiming, availment, aimed, targeted, copyrighted, tortious conduct, electronic, exercise of jurisdiction, reasonably anticipate, licensing, trademark, entity, intentional torts, misappropriated, nonresident LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Jurisdictional Sources > General Overview
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/29/2010 for the course ENTR Buisness l taught by Professor Sandhous during the Spring '10 term at Johns Hopkins.

Page1 / 27

7404A107d01 - Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS MATTHEW PAVLOVICH,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online