Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Pavlovich v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Sixth District · 2001 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionInternet JurisdictionCalifornia Long-Arm Statuteminimum contactspurposeful availmenteffects test

Facts

Pavlovich, then an out-of-state computer engineering student and technology entrepreneur, operated a Web site on which he posted DeCSS, a program designed to defeat DVD CCA's CSS encryption system used to protect copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs. He admitted knowing that DeCSS was developed through unauthorized reverse engineering, that his LiVid project used DVD CCA's trade secrets, and that DeCSS facilitated DVD piracy. He also admitted knowing that California was commonly understood to be the center of the motion picture industry and a major technology center. Through his Internet posting, he made the misappropriated information available to users in California and elsewhere.

Issue

May California courts exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who, through a Web site operated outside California, intentionally posts and disseminates misappropriated trade secret information that he knows or should know will cause injury in California? More specifically, does such Internet-based conduct constitute purposeful availment and satisfy due process under California's long-arm statute?

Rule

California may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident consistent with due process when the defendant has minimum contacts with the state, including purposeful availment, and the controversy arises out of or bears a substantial connection to those contacts. In the Internet context, intentional online dissemination of misappropriated information that is expressly aimed at California and causes harmful effects the defendant knows or should know are likely to be suffered in California satisfies purposeful availment; once such minimum contacts are shown, the defendant bears the burden to make a compelling showing that jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

🔒

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.

Nina Rios, a software engineer in Oregon, runs a public website that posts code she knows was created by unauthorized reverse engineering of a video-security system used by many film-distribution and hardware firms. She also knows Los Angeles and San Jose are major centers of those industries, and that publishing the code will enable widespread misuse by users in California.

If a California trade-secret plaintiff sues Nina in San Diego, which is the strongest argument that California may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over her?

Explanation. The majority held that California may exercise specific jurisdiction when a nonresident intentionally disseminates misappropriated information on the Internet, the conduct is expressly aimed at California, and the defendant knows or should know the brunt of the harm is likely to be suffered there. Physical presence or California-specific subscriptions are unnecessary. The key is the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, plus harmful effects in California. (Derived from Pavlovich v. Superior Court (n.d.).)