Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Burdick v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionInternet Defamationminimum contactsspecific jurisdictioneffects testexpress aiming

Facts

Plaintiffs, California residents who operated a noncommercial skin-care science blog, sued Burdick, an Illinois resident, for defamation and related intentional torts based on statements he posted and later removed from his personal Facebook page while in Illinois. The post referred to a "Blogging Scorpion" and claimed, among other things, that more would be revealed about why he lost his medical license and used multiple social security numbers; plaintiffs alleged readers would understand the post referred to them. Burdick declared he had no California residence, office, property, bank account, contract, license, or employment, and that he made and removed the post from Illinois. Plaintiffs showed the Facebook page was publicly available but did not produce evidence that the page or post targeted a California audience, had substantial California readership, or included California-focused advertising.

Issue

Does California have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a defamation action solely because, while in his home state, he posted allegedly defamatory statements on a publicly available Facebook page about plaintiffs he knew resided in California? More specifically, does knowledge that plaintiffs live and will feel harm in California satisfy the express-aiming requirement of the effects test?

Rule

For specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident intentional tort defendant, the defendant's own suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state. In Internet-based defamation cases, merely posting allegedly defamatory material online while knowing the plaintiff resides in the forum and will suffer harm there is insufficient; the plaintiff must show the defendant expressly aimed or intentionally targeted the conduct at the forum itself, not merely at a plaintiff who lives there. Jurisdiction must rest on forum-related acts personally committed by the defendant, not on the plaintiff's forum contacts or acts of codefendants or third parties.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While in Ohio, Martin Keene posted on his publicly viewable social-media page that Lena Ortiz, a nutrition blogger in San Diego, was a fraud who lied to customers. Lena sued Martin in California for defamation, showing only that Martin knew she lived and worked in California and would feel reputational harm there.

Should a California court likely find specific personal jurisdiction over Martin on this record?

Explanation. Specific jurisdiction for an intentional tort requires more than intentional conduct plus foreseeable injury in the forum. The defendant's own suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum state itself. In an internet-defamation setting, merely posting online while knowing the plaintiff resides in California is insufficient absent evidence that the post was expressly aimed or intentionally targeted at California, rather than merely at a California resident.