WPCk U#J˓Z7)\LTт^vU\a.{ڬ}͋onQ p{n&iNq'%jLAω} lܘ\kg H7};ՀȰ Kպ()3F(.8(Y#HTWĜeӐ/)A;07 rFvJ.|詃~aŋH::HY 3PS j^Yƫz,1Eyׂz`EgKGO4tFcf0v6UnUZGJx bOC*Mp8 \Yev^&0ZQwb*ͩ>Ω@-i;QSAS j$e~42@N%EbT ϖH' fU.# %#U>N# 0$$$ m$w@$%nX$%|& 0 &4'' 0-'U N) 0N) 0 )&*E.f. . .. R. R7/ R/ R/ R-0 R0 R0 B#1 R@1 1m1 R1Q2 R3i3 0c"55UN>66b 8 1mAUNA 0w=BbB BaBB 0AC mC 0UC 0i3D {-D:E 0}J 0J D+*K 0UK 0JK AMUNUN=tUNMUNAUN5~UNUNOUN;UNקUNzȨ yUNͩUNԪUN۬UNDUNtNUN´UNRUN~FUNĺUN`UNUNLUN= h7 ¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ ȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾȾ 0ξ<6X9`(CourierX(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(u2$  !XX-XXX)6XX-  U UӀӀӀEeӀ3|x<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@3 Ha`$2Line Printer 16.67cpiH H@;@ (Z$XXXXXXXЀ(V(  *XX-XXX)6XX-  ,,529005.WPD,r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     (hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(v3oG$  !XX-XXX)6XX-  (u2$  !XX-XXX)6XX-    oG(XX-XXX)6XX-  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+\FooterAttorneyNameCourtTitle1B,d0\MAA'露LCourtTitle2B,d0\MAA'露PartyName2B,d0\MAAD露PartyTitle2,d0\MAADh露PartyName3B,d0\MAADG露PartyTitle3B,d0\MAAD0露@CrossActionB,d0\MAAD0露 dCaseNo = B,d0\MAAD0露'.#R37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)PartyTitle1B,d0\MAA'露Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Dates B,d0\MAAD0露  )XX-XXX)6XX-  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  X)6POINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#)6X #(;$2R  0  .3  0   *X)X-XXX))6XX-  ,,529005.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  )X-X-XXX-)6XX-  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  -)6MOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#-)6 #  '  0 .   "MacPacCourtS2MacPacOfficeSan JoseDMacPacJurisdictionSANTA CLARA&MacPacDivision>MacPacClientTitleDefendantDMacPacClientNameANDREW BUNNERDMacPacPlaintiffTitlePlaintifftMacPacPlaintiffNameDVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC.FMacPacDefendantTitleDefendantspMacPacDefendantNameANDREW THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN, et al.4MacPacCaseNoCV 786804nMacPacDocTitleXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(MacPacDocFooterMacPacDateMacPacTimeMacPacDept(MacPacDiscovery"MacPacMotion MacPacTrial4MacPacCrossActionNone*MacPacDateFormat*MacPacMixedCase02MacPacSelectedCount1PMacPacSelectedNamesLevy, Allonn E.|2MacPacRespectSubmit14MacPacSigTypeStandardJMacPacSigningAttyLevy, Allonn E.MacPacSaveNameAllonn E.|Levy|ALLONN E.|LEVY|AEL|187251||||1|4MacPacFACNo39083-64-0$MacPacSigName(MacPacOtherDate'.&ǣ37=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(O3$0  2R  a  .3  0` (#(# 3569@/TABLE A e'XX-XXX)6XX-  @DD/D  (e$8 `  U(,N$8 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` (@91$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     8 0 T(XXXXX XX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27 ,8*4 || T28(T}$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#  (3$  !XX-XXX)6XX-   d 'dxd(u2$  !XX-XXX)6XX-  ("$ Figure    $<=;A<< c(u2$  !XX-XXX)6XX-  (h$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(# h   D $XCX-XXXC)6XX- `   1    OnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault(see  RequestForEntryofDefaultdatedMarch10,2000attachedasexhibit BtoAELDEC,hereinafterreferredtoas exhibitB).Asofthiswriting,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequestofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaulthasbeenenteredbytheCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultordefaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthedefaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction. )XX-XXX)6XX-  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(v(2 $  !XX-XXX)6XX-   `   0  r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     HPartyName1B,d0\MAA'露r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     K  U(XXXXX)IXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+ t D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   6    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   7    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.  U(XXXXX)IXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+(%$  1    D $XQX-XXXQ)6XX- `   2    TheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnection  withtheforumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"(WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286,297(1980)).  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   1    OnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault(see  RequestForEntryofDefaultdatedMarch10,2000attachedasexhibit BtoAELDEC,hereinafterreferredtoas exhibitB).Asofthiswriting,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequestofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaulthasbeenenteredbytheCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultordefaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthedefaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   2    TheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnection  withtheforumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"(WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286,297(1980)). j D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   3    Whereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismisto  fileamotiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess(FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthen ~ theplaintiff'sburdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant(Idat792793).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   4    Additionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefense ~ Organization,supra,at1060).  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   5    Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluence  overtheinformationcontainedinaLividwebsite(PAVDECatpar.79).PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite(PAVDECatpar.9).TABLE B j D $XWX-XXXW)6XX- `   3    Whereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismisto  fileamotiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess(FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthen ~ theplaintiff'sburdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant(Idat792793).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XYX-XXXY)6XX- `   4    Additionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefense ~ Organization,supra,at1060).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $X[X-XXX[)6XX- `   5    Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluence  overtheinformationcontainedinaLividwebsite(PAVDECatpar.79).PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite(PAVDECatpar.9).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular t D $X]X-XXX])6XX- `   6    ^)6)6^X-X)6UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#]X-XXX-##])6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D $X`X-XXX`)6XX- `   7    a)6)6aX-X)6UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#`X-XXX-##`)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular e'XcX-XXXc)6XX-  @DD/D  (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  )XfX-XXXf)6XX-  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  f)6MOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#f)6 #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular+@ )XiX-XXXi)6XX-  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular *XkX-XXXk)6XX-  ,,529005.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  )XnX-XXXn)6XX-  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  n)6POINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#n)6 #- -(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XpX-XXXp)6XX- `   1    OnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault(see  RequestForEntryofDefaultdatedMarch10,2000attachedasexhibit BtoAELDEC,hereinafterreferredtoas exhibitB).Asofthiswriting,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequestofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaulthasbeenenteredbytheCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultordefaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthedefaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XrX-XXXr)6XX- `   2    TheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnection  withtheforumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"(WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286,297(1980)).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular j D $XtX-XXXt)6XX- `   3    Whereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismisto  fileamotiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess(FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthen ~ theplaintiff'sburdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant(Idat792793).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XvX-XXXv)6XX- `   4    Additionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefense ~ Organization,supra,at1060).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XxX-XXXx)6XX- `   5    Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluence  overtheinformationcontainedinaLividwebsite(PAVDECatpar.79).PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite(PAVDECatpar.9).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular t D $XzX-XXXz)6XX- `   6    {)6)6{X-X)6UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#zX-XXX-##z)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D $X}X-XXX})6XX- `   7    ~)6)6~X-X)6UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#}X-XXX-##})6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular e'XX-XXX)6XX-  @DD/D  (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular )XX-XXX)6XX-  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular *XX-XXX)6XX-  ,,529005.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  )XX-XXX)6XX-  @.D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  Y)6POINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#)6Y #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   1    OnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault(see  RequestForEntryofDefaultdatedMarch10,2000attachedasexhibit BtoAELDEC,hereinafterreferredtoas exhibitB).Asofthiswriting,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequestofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaulthasbeenenteredbytheCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultordefaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthedefaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   2    TheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnection  withtheforumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"(WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286,297(1980)). )XX-XXX)6XX-  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular j D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   3    Whereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismisto  fileamotiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess(FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthen ~ theplaintiff'sburdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant(Idat792793).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   4    Additionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefense ~ Organization,supra,at1060).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   5    Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluence  overtheinformationcontainedinaLividwebsite(PAVDECatpar.79).PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite(PAVDECatpar.9).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular t D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   6    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   7    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular e'XX-XXX)6XX-  @DD/D  (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular )XX-XXX)6XX-  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular *XX-XXX)6XX-  ,,529005.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  )XX-XXX)6XX-  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  X)6POINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#)6X #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   1    OnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault(see  RequestForEntryofDefaultdatedMarch10,2000attachedasexhibit BtoAELDEC,hereinafterreferredtoas exhibitB).Asofthiswriting,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequestofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaulthasbeenenteredbytheCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultordefaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthedefaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   2    TheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnection  withtheforumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"(WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286,297(1980)).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular j D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   3    Whereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismisto  fileamotiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess(FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthen ~ theplaintiff'sburdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionoverthedefendant(Idat792793).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   4    Additionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureoftheexchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefense ~ Organization,supra,at1060).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   5    Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluence  overtheinformationcontainedinaLividwebsite(PAVDECatpar.79).PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite(PAVDECatpar.9).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular t D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   6    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D $XX-XXX)6XX- `   7    )6)6X-X)6UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#X-XXX-##)6XX-#.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular e'XX-XXX)6XX-  @DD/D  (@ Z 6Times New Roman RegularTT@TH(u3$  !XX-XXX)6XX-   !XX-XXX)6XX-  TRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TC ,'. ǣ&#"'.C7^XXdd7T7mTGԛTE XX     `       ݜBh  (֛j*w1ddd Xdd Xdd X%%w,d ,dd +    Ӝ&BBBlBdB*B%  39261640ALLONNE.LEVY(BarNo.187251)HUBERSAMUELSONAPC  210NorthFourthStreet,Suite400SanJose,CA95112Telephone:(408)2957034Facsimile:(408)2955799%  %U Attorneysfor% # Defendant%# ԛ̜% F MATTHEWPAVLOVICH%F ԛ       0 $$   Ӝ %  SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA%:ԛ̜%  COUNTYOFSANTACLARA%   .x%%.%  DVDCOPYCONTROLASSOCIATION,INC.%, `  %  Plaintiff%W, ` vs.̜%  ANDREWTHOMASMCLAUGHLIN,etal.%, `  %  Defendants%.%  %- 4 ))))))))))))) , М% ! SuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV786804%!ԛ̜ POINTSANDAUTHORITIESIN dL. SUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION  1 М lA ) xdEAxl  l2 [NotageneralappearanceC.C.P.418.10]Date:  July6,2000 5 Time:  9:00a.m. 6 Dept.:  2 lT7 ̛% % %% : .x.Ӝ  )6)6 ` #)6)60#   % e @@DD/D  2ǣ  I  .3  %  INTRODUCTION   t#\>    ` DefendantMATTHEWPAVLOVICHsubmitsthismemoranduminsupportofhispendingmotiontoquashserviceofprocess.Defendantsmotion,andallattendantpapersandactions,areintendedtoserveasaspecialappearancepursuanttosection418.10oftheCaliforniaCodeofCivilProcedure.Furthermore,DefendantneitherconsentsnorsubmitstothejurisdictionofthisCourt,instead,contestingjurisdictionbywayofthismotion.\\ d.L*L   `  2ǣ  A  .3  0 NatureOfAction Ԁ  % %  ` ThisisaFirstAmendmentcasewhereintheplaintiff,DVDCCA,seekstoenjoinDefendantPAVLOVICHandsome500othersfromrepublishingapieceofcomputercodeidentifiedasDeCSS. ` Plaintiffclaimsthatitisentitledtorestrainthedefendant'srighttorepublishthisspeechbyallegingthecodeisamisappropriatedtradesecret.PlaintiffspeculatesthatanindividualnamedJonJohansonauthoredDeCSSbymisappropriatingtradesecretsandthatDefendantherein,andothers,subsequentlyrepublishedDeCSSwithactualorconstructiveknowledgethatDeCSScontainedmisappropriatedtradesecrets(seePlaintiffscomplaintattachedasexhibit AtothedeclarationofAllonnE.Levy(hereafter AELDEC)filedconcurrentlyherewithandreferredtohereinafteras Complaintatp.13:1727;p.17:2428).PAVLOVICHisallegedtohaverepublishedDeCSSonawebsitelocatedat"www.livid.on.openprojects.net)6)6"!anonexistent#)6)6#Ԁsite  location(PAVDECatpar.7,8,9).PAVLOVICHdidhaveinputonanothersite(Id). hP %    `  2ǣ  B  .3  0 IdentificationofParties 7 p % %  ` PlaintiffDVDCCAisaDelawarecorporationwithofficeslocatedinMorganHill,   California(Complaintatp.3:1217),claimingharmbasedontherepublicationofDeCSS.DefendantPAVLOVICHisanoutofstateresidentservedbyU.S.mailinIndianaand 8 $ currentlyresidinginTexas. `  2ǣ  C  .3  0 SummaryOfFactsReJurisdiction i  $ ) % %  ` DefendantsinvolvementinthiscaseislimitedtohisroleasanallegedrepublisheroftheDeCSScodewhileenrolledasafulltimestudentattheUniversityofIndiana()6)6see @'(#- declarationofMatthewPavlovichfiledconcurrentlyherewith,hereinafterreferredtoas"PAVDEC"#)6)6#Ԁatpar.3).PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantPAVLOVICHisresponsiblefor `*H&1 thepostingofDeCSSonthe"www.livid.on.openprojects.net")6)6Ԁwebsite(complaintat +'3 p.5:1316). -h)5  ` DefendantPAVLOVICHhasnoconnectionwithCalifornia.PAVLOVICHdoesnotresideinCaliforniaanddoesnothaveanyregularclientsorworkinCalifornia(PAVDECatpar.10).Furthermore,PAVLOVICHhasnever:solicitedbusinessin 8  California;designatedaregisteredagentforserviceofprocessinCalifornia;maintainedaplaceofbusinessinCalifornia;maintainedatelephonelistinginCalifornia;maintainedabankaccountinCalifornia;orevenvisitedCaliforniaforanybusinesspurpose(PAVDECatpar.11).  ԀThewebsiteplaintiff'sareassumedtoattributetoPAVLOVICHintheircomplaintwasa"passive"websitethatdidnotinvolvetheinteractiveexchangeofinformationwithusers,didnotsolicitorengageinbusinessactivities,anddidnotsolicitcontactwithCaliforniaresidents(PAVDECatpar.9).  ` #  2ǣ  D  .3  0 SummaryOfArgument H% h % %  ` Bywayofthispendingmotion,DefendantPAVLOVICHasksthisCourttoquashserviceofprocessonthegroundsthatthisCourtlackspowertoexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverDefendant.DefendantisnotaCaliforniaresidentandisnotdomiciledinCalifornia,hasnocontacts,noties,norelationshipwithCalifornia,wasnotservedwithinCalifornia,andhasnotconsentedtoorappearedintheCaliforniaaction(Pennoyer P8 v.Neff95U.S.714,733(1877)).Therefore,thereisnoconstitutionallysufficientbasis ! forthisCourttoassertpersonaljurisdictionoverDefendant.Accordingly,thisCourtmustquashserviceofprocessandsetasideanyexistingdefaultordefaultjudgmentasvoidNoA L%  1      ׀(C.C.P.473(d);C.C.P.418.10(d)). "x'  %!+ Ї    2ǣ  II  .3    BECAUSETHISCOURTLACKSPERSONALJURISDICTIONOVER  DEFENDANTPAVLOVICH,THECOURTSHOULDSETASIDEANYDEFAULTORDEFAULTJUDGMENTANDQUASHSERVICEOFPROCESS B*  8     ` CaliforniacourtsareempoweredtoexercisepersonaljurisdictiononanybasisconsistentwiththeStateorFederalConstitution(CCP410.10).Inthisregard,acourtmayexercisepersonaljurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantonlywhenthedefendanthassuchminimumcontactswiththeforumstatethatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnot x `  offend"traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice"(Felixv.Bomoro   ТKommanditgesellschaft(1987)196Cal.App.3d106,111[citingInternationalShoeCo.v.   Washington326U.S.310,316(1945)];HelicopterosNacionalesdeColumbiav.Hall ( 466U.S.408,414(1984)).Moreover,minimumcontactsaremeasuredonacasebycase  basisandtheultimatetestiswhether"Californiahasasufficientrelationshipwiththe[particular]defendantandlitigation[as]tomakeitreasonable( fairplay)..."torequirethedefendanttodefendthelitigationinCalifornia(Weil&Brown,Cal.Prac.Guide: hP Civ.Pro.BeforeTrial,(TheRutterGroup1999)3:202at341.2)OqM L%  2      .Additionally,any  defaultordefaultjudgmententeredwithoutjurisdictionoverthedefendantisnecessarilyvoidPsV L%  3      . `     2 `  2ǣ  A  .3  0 ThecourtlackspersonaljurisdictionoverdefendantPAVLOVICH B3 pX# % %  ` Thepersonaljurisdictionanalysisisbrokendownintotwoquestions:[1]does"general"jurisdictionexist;and[2]absent"general"jurisdiction,does"specific"jurisdictionexist(seeBrownv.Watson(1989)207Cal.App.3d1306,1312).Inother  $ ) words:8 ` Ifadefendanthassufficientextensive'contacts'withtheforumstate,itmaybesubjecttosuitthereonallclaimswherevertheyarise[i.e.,generaljurisdiction]....[In]othercases,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdependsonanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation[i.e.,specificjurisdiction]'. ` (#` (# ӢSammonsEnterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432. X @ ЀAsexplainedbelow,neither"general"nor"specific"jurisdictionarepresentinthiscase.  `   2ǣ  1  .3  0  GeneralJurisdictionIsAbsentInThisCase 8  %%  ` Generaljurisdictiondependsuponsubstantial,continuous,andsystematiccontactsbetweenthedefendantandtheforumstate(Perkinsv.BenguetMiningConsolidated ( MiningCo.,(1952)342U.S.437,447448;KLMv.SuperiorCourt,(1951)107  ТCal.App.2d495,500;SammonsEnterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,1434;Secrest H0 MachineCorp.v.SuperiorCourt(1983)33Cal.3d664,669).Inthiscase,Defendant  PAVLOVICH'scontactwithCaliforniaisanythingbutsubstantial,continuous,orsystematic.   ` First,DefendantisaTexasresident,formerlyaresidentofIndiana.Second, p Defendantsdoesnothaveanyregularbusiness,clientsoremployeesinCalifornia.  ԀThird, 3<Ԁ   DefendanthasneversolicitedbusinessinCalifornia.Fourth,Defendanthasnever " designatedaregisteredagentforserviceofprocessinCalifornia.Fifth,Defendanthas 8 $ nevermaintainedaplaceofbusinessinCaliforniaorevenatelephonelistinginCalifornia.Sixth,Defendanthasneverownedpropertyormaintainedabankaccountin X#@( California.Seventh,DefendanthasneverevenbeentoCaliforniaforbusinesspurposes. $ * #)6)6;!#(PAVDECgenerally,andatpar.10,11). x&`",  ` Inshort,DefendanthasnotengagedinanybusinessactivitiesinCalifornia,muchlessanyactivitiesthatmaybedescribedassubstantial,continuous,orsystematic.Hence,thereisnobasisforCaliforniatoexercisegeneraljurisdictionoverDefendantPAVLOVICH.SinceCaliforniahasnorealrelationshipwiththisDefendant,itisnot ,(4 reasonabletorequirePAVLOVICHtodefendpendinglitigationinCalifornia. H.0*6 Ї `   2ǣ  2  .3  0  SpecificJurisdictionIsAbsentInThisCase @ %%  ` Specificjurisdictiondependsuponashowingthatthenonresidentdefendantpurposefullyestablishedcontactswiththeforumstate,thattheplaintiff'scauseofaction 8  arisesoutofthedefendant'sforumrelatedcontacts,andtheforum'sexerciseofpersonaljurisdictioncomportswithfairplayandsubstantialjustice.BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz, X @ 471U.S.462,472,47678(1985))6)6;Cornelisonv.Chaney,(1976)16Cal.3d143,148.In    otherwords:8 ` Whereanonresidentdefendant'sactivitiesintheforumarenotsopervasiveastojustifytheexerciseofgeneraljurisdictionoverhim,thenjurisdictiondependsuponthequalityandnatureofhisactivityintheforuminrelationtotheparticularcauseofaction....Thus,astherelationshipofthedefendantwiththestateseekingtoexercisejurisdictionoverhimgrowsmoretenuous,thescopeofjurisdictionalsoretractsandfairnessisassuredbylimitingthecircumstancesunderwhichtheplaintiffcancompelhimtoappearanddefend.h` (#` (# Brownv.Watson(1989)207Cal.App.3d1306,13121313,emphasisadded.  8 ` Thus,specificjurisdictionisdeterminedunderathreeparttest:'(1)Thenonresidentdefendantmustdosomeactorconsummatesometransactionwiththeforumorperformsomeactbywhichhepurposefullyavailshimselfoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitiesintheforum,therebyinvokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws;(2)theclaimmustbeonewhicharisesoutoforresultsfromthedefendant'sforumrelatedactivities;and(3)exerciseofjurisdictionmustbereasonable. ` (#` (# F(JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045,1054, ! citingPanavisionIntern.,L.P.v.Toeppen141F.3d1316,1320(9thCir.1998)). " (ITheaforesaidrequirementsareabsentinthiscase. `     2ǣ  a  .3  0 h PAVLOVICHhashadnopurposefulcontactwith X#@( Californiaandhasnotpurposefullyavailedhimselfofthebenefitsoftheforumstate J $ *h%h%  ` #)6)6C#First,thiscasedoesnotinvolvepurposefulcontactbetweenDefendantand x&`", California.A"purposeful"contactisoneinwhichaparticulardefendanthasdeliberatelydirectedhis/heractivitiesattheresidentsoftheforumstateorhasdeliberatelyavailedhimself/herselfofthebenefitsandprotectionsofthelawsoftheforumstate(Hansonv. (+'2 ТDenckla,(1958)357U.S.235,253254;SeeAlsoSibleyv.SuperiorCourt,(1976)16 ,(4 Cal.3d442,447448).Statedintheconverse,personaljurisdictiondoesnotextendtoa H.0*6 nonresidentdefendantbyvirtueof"random,fortuitousorattendant..."contactsoverwhichthedefendanthadnocontrol(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,471U.S.462,47576,  485(1985)))6)6.Furthermore,unilateralactivityonthepartoftheplaintifforothersover 8  whomthenonresidentdefendanthasnocontroldoesnottranslateintoapurposefulcontactonthepartofthedefendant(HelicopterosNacionalesv.Hall,466U.S.408,416 X @ 417(1984)). ` Inthiscase,Defendantwasastudentduringthetimeperiodoutlinedinthecomplaint,andnevertransactedbusinesswithinanyoneinCalifornia(PAVDECgenerally).Furthermore,PAVLOVICHdidnotexerciseanycontroloveranyoneinCaliforniaandneversolicitedcontactswithCaliforniaresidentsthroughthewebsiteidentifiedinthecomplaint(PAVDECatpar9,10,11).Assuming,arguendo,thatanyCaliforniaresidentcontactedthesubjectwebsite,suchcontactwouldhavebeensimplyfortuitous.ThewebsitemerelycontainedinformationavailabletoanyInternetuseranddidnottargetorinanywaysolicitCaliforniaresidents(PAVDECatpar.9).Additionally,PAVLOVICHcannothavetargetedhisactionateitherDVDCCAorCaliforniasincehewasnotawareoftheexistenceofDVDCCA(muchlesstheirplaceofbusiness)priortothefilingofthislawsuit(PAVDECatpar.12).Accordingly,totheextentthatDefendantPAVLOVICHmaybeinvolvedintheeventswhicharethesubjectofthislawsuit,hisinvolvementcannotbedescribedasapurposefulcontactwithCalifornia. 8 $  ` Court'shaveestablishedguidelinesincyberspacecaseswheretheplaintiffattemptstoutilizethe"effectstest"(Calderv.Jones465U.S.783(1984))tosatisfythe X#@( "purposefulavailment"requirementofspecificjurisdiction:8 ` [T]helikelihoodthatpersonaljurisdictioncanbeconstitutionallyexercisedisdirectlyproportionatetothenatureandqualityofcommercialactivitythatanentityconductsovertheInternet.Thisslidingscaleisconsistentwithwelldevelopedpersonaljurisdictionprinciples.AtoneendofthespectrumaresituationswhereadefendantclearlydoesbusinessovertheInternet.IfthedefendantentersintocontractswithresidentsofaforeignjurisdictionthatinvolvetheknowingandrepeatedtransmissionofcomputerfilesovertheInternet,personaljurisdictionisproper.[Citation.]AttheoppositeendaresituationswhereadefendanthassimplypostedinformationonanInternetWebsitewhichisaccessibletousersinforeignjurisdictions.ApassiveWebsitethatdoeslittlemorethanmake H.0*6 informationavailabletothosewhoareinterestedinitisnotgroundsfortheexerciseofpersonaljurisdiction.[Citation] ` (#` (# (JewishDefenseOrganizationv.SuperiorCourt,supra,at1060RuX L%  4      ) pX V ` Here,PAVLOVICHhasatmostS|||w|Z| L%  5      ׀offeredinformationonapassivewebsite.  Assuming,arguendo,thattheinformationreachedCaliforniaresidentssuchcontactswouldbeinsufficienttoestablishspecificjurisdiction(Id;andseealsoCybersell,Inc.v.    Cybersell,Inc,130F.3d414(9thCir.1997)).InJewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.    SuperiorCourt,supra,theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourt'sdenialofa @(  defendant'smotiontovacatedefaultjudgmentandquashserviceofprocesswherethe   Defendanthadmadeallegedlydefamatorystatements(thesubjectofthelawsuit)onhisWebsite,usedtheU.S.mailtocontactaCaliforniaresident,previouslyresidedinCalifornia,andcontractedwithaCaliforniaInternetserviceprovider(ISP)tohosttheWebsiteinquestion.Intheinstantcase,theforumcontactsareevenlesssubstantialthanthoseinJewishDefenseOrganization.PAVLOVICHhashadnocontactswithCalifornia  andisonlyallegedtohaveofferedinformationonapassivewebsite(PAVDECgenerally).Thus,thisCourtshouldfollowtheAppellateCourtsholdinginJewish  DefenseOrganization,setasideanydefault,andquashserviceofprocessbasedonalack P8 ofpurposefulavailment. `     2ǣ  b  .3  0 h TheClaimdoesnotarisefromPAVLOVICHsforum !% relatedactivities *b !&h%h%  ` Second,Plaintiff'scauseofactiondoesnotrelatetoanylocalactivitiesonthepart X#@( ofDefendantPAVLOVICH.Personaljurisdictionisrestrictedtosituationswherea $ * particularcauseofactionrelatestoor arisesoutofthedefendant'sforumrelatedactivities(JewishDefenseOrganization,supra,at1054andPerkinsv.Benguet  ConsolidatedMiningCo.,342U.S.437,444445(1952)).Inthiscase,plaintiffhas 8  allegedthatdefendantPAVLOVICHmisappropriatedDVDCCA'stradesecretsbyrepublishingsaidtradesecretsworldwide(Complaintatp.14:1317).ThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthatcausedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisforum. `     2ǣ  c  .3  0 h Exerciseofjurisdictionwouldnotbereasonableinthis  case vg hh%h%  ` Third,itisunreasonable,andthusconstitutionallyoffensive,toimposepersonal  jurisdictioninthiscase.Inascertainingreasonablenessinapplyingpersonaljurisdiction,Courtsbalancethefollowingfactors:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Theinterestofthestateinprovidingaforumforitsresidentsorinregulatingthebusinessinvolved...;therelativeavailabilityoftheevidenceandtheburdenofdefenseandprosecutioninoneplaceratherthananother...;theeaseofaccesstoanalternativeforum...;theavoidanceofmultiplicityofsuitsandconflictingadjudications...;andtheextenttowhichthecauseofactionaroseoutofdefendant'slocalactivities....   FisherGovernorCo.v.SuperiorCourt,(1959)53Cal.2d222,22526. !&  ` Todate,thedefenseisawareofonlyoneCaliforniawitnessessentialtotheprosecutionanddefenseofthisaction,Mr.JohnHoy.Bycontrast,anarrayofwitnessesthatcouldprovideinformationinthiscaseareavailablefromNorway,toJapan,to England,toNewYorkandConnecticut.Thefactthattwosimilarcasesarecurrently (#. beingprosecutedinConnecticutIy\ L%  6      ׀andNewYorkJ|_ L%  7      ׀makesitclearthatthiscasecouldbe   triedinanynumberofotheravailableforums.Also,sinceCaliforniahasadoptedtheUniformTradeSecretsAct,theplaintiffhastheabilitytoprosecutethesameclaiminanynumberofotherjurisdictions. ` Finally,therearenooverridingpolicyconsiderationsthatcompelCaliforniatoassertjurisdictionoverPAVLOVICH,anindividualTexasresidentandformerIndianastudent.ThiscasehasnothingtodowithanyactivitiesthatDefendantperformedinCalifornia.Inpointoffact,PAVLOVICHhasperformednoactivitiesinCalifornia,didnotsolicitorengageintransactionswithCalifornia,andcertainlyengagedinnoactivitieswithCaliforniathatgaverisetothependinglitigation. ` BecausePAVLOVICHisdomiciledinTexas(PAVDECatpar.6),isemployedinTexasatanewstartupcompany(PAVDECatpar.3,4),andhasnocontactwith,orreasontocometo,California(PAVDECatpar.10),itwouldnecessarilybeasubstantialburdenonPAVLOVICHtodefendthisactioninCalifornia(PAVDECatpar.13). ` Withtheabovefactorsinmind,itisevidentthatthebalanceweighsheavilyagainstjurisdictioninCalifornia.Therefore,andintheinterestsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice,thisCourtshouldnotimposejurisdictioninthiscase.  "     2ǣ  III  .3    CONCLUSION t  8     ` Foralloftheabovereasons,CaliforniadoesnothavepersonaljurisdictionoverDefendantPAVLOVICH;therefore,Defendantsmotiontovacatedefaultand/ordefaultjudgmentandquashserviceshouldbegranted.-X@ X-#)6)6EO# @ *fTUddd dd 1%%f,< ,<x +   `H  DATED:June5,2000June6,2000%  "US ,   `H  'X@ h'HUBERSAMUELSONAPC `H  By:%%P% h 0  ALLONNE.LEVY %% 0  AttorneysforDefendant, %%   MATTHEWPAVLOVICH   0   XX2b  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS   ##L% Page   0  3e  3eE{8 `    I.0` ` (#` (#INTRODUCTION#%%O%. ` (#` (##13eE{a{݌ 8  Ќ  3e  3e|8 `     ` A.0 ` (#` (#NatureOfAction#%%O%.) (# (##23e|:|݌  x Ќ   ` B.0 IdentificationofParties#%%O%.2 % %#2     ` C.0 SummaryOfFactsReJurisdiction#%%O%.``9 % %#2    3e  3e}8 `     ` D.0 ` (#` (#SummaryOfArgument#%%O%.- (# (##33e}}݌ @(  Ќ  3e  3e~8 `    3e~~݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  3e  3eV8 `    II.0` ` (#` (#BECAUSETHISCOURTLACKSPERSONALJURISDICTIONOVER `H  DEFENDANTPAVLOVICH,THECOURTSHOULDSETASIDEANYDEFAULTORDEFAULTJUDGMENTANDQUASHSERVICEOFPROCESS#%%O%.  ` (#` (##43eVr݌  Ќ  3e  3e؀8 `     ` A.0 ` (#` (#ThecourtlackspersonaljurisdictionoverdefendantPAVLOVICH#%%O%.b"b"W (# (##43e؀݌  Ќ  3e  3e8 `     `  1.0` (#` (#GeneralJurisdictionIsAbsentInThisCase#%%O%.I(#(##53e݌  Ќ  691  6918 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#   2.0(#(#SpecificJurisdictionIsAbsentInThisCase#%%O%.J(#(##6691 ݌ 0 Ќ  9}  9} 8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    a.0hh(#h(#PAVLOVICHhashadnopurposefulcontactwith  Californiaandhasnotpurposefullyavailedhimselfofthebenefitsoftheforumstate#%%O%.Bh(#h(##69} '݌ P8 Ќ  9}  9}8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    b.0hh(#h(#TheClaimdoesnotarisefromPAVLOVICHsforum ! relatedactivities#%%O%.5h(#h(##89}݌ " Ќ  9}  9}8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    c.0hh(#h(#Exerciseofjurisdictionwouldnotbereasonableinthis 8 $ case#%%O%.'h(#h(##99}݌ !% Ќ  9}  9}S8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#    9}So݌ h(#h(# Ќ  3e  3e8 `    III.0` ` (#` (#CONCLUSION#$$N%.` (#` (##113e8݌  $ ) Ќ  9{  $ *  @%D TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   @)D FEDERALCASES  X   Calderv.Jones,465U.S.783(1984)%%O%.rr>7 3 Cybersell,Inc.v.Cybersell,Inc,130F.3d414(9thCir.1997)%%O%. Y8  x Hansonv.Denckla,357U.S.235(1958)%%O%.?6 S   HelicopterosNacionalesdeColumbiav.Hall,466U.S.408(1984)r$r$M%.""Z4,7    BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,471U.S.462(1985)r$r$M%.PPG6,7 s(  PanavisionIntern.,L.P.v.Toeppen,141F.3d1316(9thCir.1998)%%O%.z"z"\6   Pennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714(1877)%%O%.>3 H  Perkinsv.BenguetMiningConsolidatedMiningCo.,342U.S.437 # Ѐ  (1952)r$r$M%.PP$5,9  World-WideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,444U.S.286(1980)%%O%.\"\"U4 {0   @kk*D STATECASES  P   Brownv.Watson(1989),207Cal.App.3d1306r$r$M%.nnG4,6 + Cornelisonv.Chaney,(1976),16Cal.3d143%%O%.TTF6 p Felixv.BomoroKommanditgesellschaft(1987),196Cal.App.3d106%%O%.##[4 K  FisherGovernorCo.v.SuperiorCourt,(1959),53Cal.2d222%%O%. ! !W9 " FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997),59Cal.App.4th789%%O%.!!Z4 k $ JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999),72Cal. !&   App.4th1045##K%.VV-6,8,9 "x' KLMv.SuperiorCourt,(1951),107Cal.App.2d495%%O%.BBM5 S$ ) SammonsEnterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988),205Cal.App.3d %!+   1427%%O%.#5 &`", SecrestMachineCorp.v.SuperiorCourt(1983),33Cal.3d664%%O%.!!X5 ;(#. Sibleyv.SuperiorCourt,(1976),16Cal.3d442%%O%.>>J6 )%0   @cc(D DOCKETEDCASES  #,'3   UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughescaseno.300CV721 -h)5   RNC,(D.Ct),$$N%.+@$$N%.$$g10 K UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277  (LAK)$$N%.$10 X   @+D STATUTES   x   C.C.P.418.10(%.(1,3