WPC l f&xq;E T38@JNAZ $=}ZU$Rܣ8.gCh= NoHC꩚+ZZ#, CtkpąnqE8A{6jTCmoiur'Ny WBe8(cpXaSO{pu{)k QTãZ{'b Wʞ 90ߢ@ɚ5.o;"eAזZ7{~ǝej#,Kt7Q q']"ڢ0Jv4cB Q}KI: 6G-}RPqQJ_S+| +,]״F w+|xVv1`3+\z4(z6Cp%lbJOP=; k IGt[L&UN' 1uN'E' 0c' 0w((b(f((a) 0D)M)'* 1mA+s+!-./h2Q3m5 0A?7d78w:4::;; 0 U<G= 0i%> 0 }> 0 ? 0?b&@ *@A@AcBbCC{C mxJIJzKfRMVNQR.oSTTTfbUadUdUdUdUdUdU 0"lxUxUxUxUxUUVV 0"DWWXZb4\^B`qbbbbbWckdddddddddd BChChChChChChChChChChChChChChChCh R`h Rh Ri RVi Ri Ri RLj Rj RjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBkBk JkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJkJk 72PkNkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 0Dkkk 0DkJade,,,,,,0< 9Z .Courier New RegularX($ w_XX h  538043.WPD#XVX#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(\  p`&Times New Roman(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#! )  @*Ac ) xdExA  PetitionforWritofMandamus;PointsandAuthoritiesinSupportthereofTABLE A(3$ !   C )    ӄ  3  ڀ  D$    2    XZXXXThepartieshavenotdisputedthefactthatthecomputercodeDeCSSisspeechfor  purposesofFirstAmendmentanalysis.#XVXXXZC# )&37=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) i D$    3    XZXXXDVDCCAhasprovidednoevidencethatMr.Johansenenteredthisagreement,orthat  heviolatedsuchanagreement.Instead,DVDCCAsimplyaversthatsuchagreementsare  usuallyagreedto.#XVXXXZC#  D$    5    XZXXXAsindicatedbelow,PetitionerdidnotownoroperatetheLiVidwebsitethatallegedly  republishedtheDeCSScode.TheLiVidwebsitethatallegedlycontainedDeCSSwas  voluntarilytakendown(seeExhibitB,APP.p.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1327).#XVXXXZC# e'  @* XXu#uR##XVX3#   D$    7    & %XX&V % %&TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethose  individualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLiVidlist(exhibitAat2122. ` ThegoaloftheLiVidgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),not 8 toharmanypartyinCalifornia.#& % %&Vb##XVX %&C#  D$    23    XZXXXAsindicatedpreviously,PetitionerwasnotevenawareofDVDCCA'sexistenceorof  itspresenceinCaliforniaatthetimeoftheallegedrepublication. G D$    24    XZXXXNotably,therecordisdevoidofanyexpertopinion,judiciallynoticedfactorother  admissiblepieceofevidencedemonstratingthattheseindustriesareactuallybasedinCalifornia,  ordoamajorityofbusinessthatissomehowtiedtoCaliforniaorattributedtoCalifornia.These   sameindustriescertainlyalsohaveamassivepresenceinNewYork,Oregon,Washington,  Texas,India,andThailand. c D$    26    XZXXX&V %XXZDVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedsimplybecausetheheart  ofthemotionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#XZX %&Vc#(V$8    Z D$    33    XZXXXDVDCCAhasargued,withoutprofferingevidence,thatbecauseCaliforniahasa  reputationforcreatingmoviesandhightechnology,ithasjurisdictionoverPetitionerwhose  conductallegedlytouchesonboth.  D$    4    XZXXX"APPstandsfortheAppendixtoExhibitsfiledconcurrentlyherewith.FortheCourts  convenience,allreferencestoexhibitswillincludeboththeAPPpagenumber,followedbythe  originaldocument#XVXXXZC#XZXXXVreference.ForexampleAPPpp.221;Complaintpp.120.#XVXXXZ|#z%*B+) D$    6    XZXXXԀSeeExhibitB,atAPP.p.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1727.#XVXXXZC#3|x  D$    1    XZXXXReferencestotheseparatelyboundAppendixofExhibits,filedconcurrentlyherewith,  willbedenotedas APP.#XVXXXZC#(,$8  0`      D$    10    XZXXXAgain,RealPartyinInterestprovidednocompetentevidencetochallengeanyofthese  facts.(@P$8  0`   0 ` `  ` (T$8  0`   0 ` ` 0  (hP$8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# $&'(* D$    22    X>XXXExhibitA,atAPP.p.15;Complaintatp.14:1317#XVXXX>D#.  )  @88)  3  ڄ  Ac ) xdExA  XZXXXZPetitionforWritofMandamus;PointsandAuthoritiesinSupportthereof#XZX##XVXXZ# Y D$    12    XZXXXSeeCourtsorderofAugust29,2000,attachedasexhibit Etotheseparatelybound  AppendixofExhibit,hereinafterreferredtoas ExhibitEatApp.p.225;Orderat1:2223#XVXXXZD#-!- q D$    9    XZXXXRealPartydidprovidetwounauthenticateddocumentsthatitallegesareattributableto  Petitioner(seeDVDCCAsoppositionpapersattachedasExhibit Ctotheseparatelybound  AppendixofExhibits,hereinafter ExhibitC,atAPP.p.111114;DeclarationofShapiroat  exhibitC).PetitionerfiledobjectionstothisevidencepursuanttoEvidencecode350,412, t 702,800and15201523,whichareincorporatedhereinbyreference(SeeExhibitDat ` App.pp.157158;ObjectionstoEvidenceatpp.12).Withoutwaivingsaidobjections,Petitioner L  contendsthatfarfromshowinganyintentionalact,theemailsshowPetitionersdisagreement 8  withDVDCCAscontentions(ExhibitCatAPP.p.114;DeclarationofShapiroatexhibitC). $ t ThedocumentsalsoshowthatatsomepointpriortothesurfacingofDeCSSontheweb(on  ` October25,1999accordingtoDVDCCA;seeExhibitAatApp.p.14;Complaintat13:1722),  L  Petitionerquotedsomeoneelsesincorrecthearsaystatementthat Reverseengineeringisillegal  8  inmostplaces(ExhibitC,atApp.p.112;DeclarationofShapiroatexhibitC).Additionally,the $  October1,1999emailregardingreverseengineeringclearlystatesitrelatestosoftware    driversandnottoanypartofCSSorDeCSS.U ? D$    25    XZXXXSeeEdmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994)24Cal.App.4th221,230,holdingthatthemere  causingofaneffect isnotnecessarilysufficienttoaffordaconstitutionalbasisforjurisdiction. p D$    8    X>XXX(SeePetitionersReplyPapersattachedasExhibit DtotheseparatelyboundAppendix  ofExhibits,hereinafter ExhibitDatAPP.pp174175;DepositionofPAVLOVICHatpp.22  23)#XVXXX>C# \ D$    15    XZXXXInaccord,KLMv.SuperiorCourt,(1951)107Cal.App.2d495,500;Sammons  Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,1434;SecrestMachineCorp.v.SuperiorCourt  (1983)33Cal.3d664,669). L D$    16    XZXXXRealParty,DVDCCAproperlyconcededthelackofgeneraljurisdictionbynotarguing  theissueinitsoppositionpapers(exhibitCatAPP.pp.7187;Oppositionatpp113)orinoral  argumentbelow(SeetranscriptofAugust29,2000proceedingsattachedasExhibit Ftothe  separatelyboundAppendixofExhibits,hereinafterreferredtoas ExhibitF,atAPP.pp.228 t 247;Transcriptatpp.120).  D$    17    XZXXXThus,anyactivitiesonthepartofthethirdpartieswhocreatedDeCSS,themovie  industry,thecomputerindustry,DVDCCA(oranyoneotherthanPAVLOVICHhimself),cannot  beusedtosupportafindingofjurisdictionoverPetitioner(HelicopterosNac.,supra). D$    18    XZXXXSeegenerally,ExhibitB,atAPP.pp6668;DeclarationofPavlovichatpp.13). $ D$    28    XZXXX&V %XXZAsindicatedpreviously,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCApriortothefilingofthe  subjectcomplaint.#XZX %&Vc# D$    19    XZXXXAsstatedpreviously;seealsoExhibitB,atAPP.p.68;DeclarationofPavlovichat3:79TABLE B((2$ !      0   D$    31    X>XXXUniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721RNC,(D.Ct)#XVXXX>D#. D$    32    X>XXXUniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.00Civ.0277(LAK),  (S.D.N.Y.)#XVXXX>D#.(%$  1    D$    11    XZXXXOnoraboutMarch14,2000,PlaintifffiledarequestforentryofDefault.Asofthis  writing,theCourt'sfileindicatesthatdespitethefactthatplaintiffhasservedanoticeofrequest  ofentryofdefault,nosuchdefaultwasenteredbythelowerCourt.Intheeventthatdefaultor  defaultjudgmentisenteredpriortothehearingonthismotion,defendantrequeststhatthe t defaultordefaultjudgmentbesetasideasvoidforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.  D$    13    XZXXXTheDueProcessclauserequires"thatthedefendant'sconductandconnectionwiththe  forumStatearesuchthathe[orshe]shouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghauledintocourtthere"  (WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson,(1980)444U.S.286,297). X D$    14    XZXXXWhereadefendantattacksjurisdictionpostdefault,thepropermechanismistofilea  motiontoconcurrentlyvacatedefaultordefaultjudgmentandquashingserviceofprocess  (FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).Itisthentheplaintiff's  burdenbothtoproveproperserviceofprocessandtoprovetheexistenceofpersonaljurisdiction t overthedefendant(Idat792793).  D$    27    & %XX&V % %&Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime  (exhibitap.52:211).#XZX %&VD#  D$    20    XZXXXAdditionally,ifaWebsiteisinteractive(ratherthanpassive),theexerciseof  jurisdictionisdeterminedbyexaminingthelevelofinteractivityandcommercialnatureofthe  exchangeofinformationthatoccursontheWebsite[Citation](JewishDefenseOrganization,  supra,at1060). g D$    21    XZXXXForpurposesofthismotionandPetitiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehad  influenceovertheinformationcontainedinaLiVidwebsite.However,PAVLOVICHisnotthe   owneror operatorofsuchasite. M D$    30    & %XX&V % %&TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#XZX %&VD# a D$    29    XZXXX&V %XXZDVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide.&% %&VThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat  causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedto ` reachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthatthe 8 informationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromor ` relatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.#&V %%&# dCourtTitle2B,d0\MAA'露PartyName2B,d0\MAAD露PartyTitle2,d0\MAADh露PartyName3B,d0\MAADG露PartyTitle3B,d0\MAAD0露@CrossActionB,d0\MAAD0露CaseNo = B,d0\MAAD0露DocumentTitle,d0\MAAD0露LDates B,d0\MAAD0露H i)(3$ !  (3$ !  !  _TRY,3' FinalX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  )(63 XZXXXuXXZ 8VXXdd8%  @9 9  COURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @ SIXTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT   % s %s^.x  .% t %tMATTHEW_PAVLOVICH_,    `  % u Petitioner.%u)    ` vs.   % v %vSUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATE   OFCALIFORNIAFORTHECOUNTY   OFSANTACLARA,    `  % w Respondent.  򀀀%wI  DVDCOPYCONTROL  ASSOCIATION,INC.,   `  RealPartyinInterest.  % x %xg򀀀-  )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )  )   ) ! ) " ) # ) $ ) % ) & ) '  ( % y SixthAppellateDistrict  ( ActionNo.____________%y  ) RelatedAppealPending:No.H021153  , TrialJudge:Hon.WilliamJ._Elfving_  / SantaClaraCountySuperiorCourt  0 TrialCourtCaseNo.CV786804 1 % z %z % { %{"  5 .x.Ac ) xdEA 5    PETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATETOCOMPELTRIAL  6 COURTTOQUASHSERVICEOFPROCESS,MEMORANDUMOF 7 POINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTTHEREOF  8    (APPENDIXOFEXHIBITSUNDERSEPARATECOVER)  !9 Ac ) xdE"A ":  "US , ALLONNE.LEVY(BarNo.187251) $ = HUBERSAMUELSON_APC_ %!> 210NorthFourthStreet,Suite400 &"? SanJose,CA95112 '#@ Telephone: (408)2957034 ($A Facsimile: (408)2955799 )%B AttorneysforPetitioner +'D _MatthewPavlovich      / 2   I  .3    INTRODUCTION  h      ` ThispetitionarisesfromanorderofRespondentSantaClaraCounty  SuperiorCourtdenyingPetitionersMotiontoQuashServiceofProcess.   Petitioner,MatthewPavlovich,wasastudentatPurdueUniversityinthe   StateofIndianaatthetimehewassued,hashadnocontactswiththeState   ofCaliforniasufficienttowarranttheexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionby   theState,andiscurrentlybeingdeniedhisconstitutionallyprotectedright   ofdueprocess.Ifthiscourtdoesnotintervene,thelowercourtsorderwill  havecreated,defacto,nearlylimitlessCaliforniajurisdictionover  individualsinvolvedintherapidlyexpandingworldoftheInternet.      2   II  .3    PETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE        ` Bythisverifiedpetition,Petitioneralleges: " - ` 1. RelatedAppeal:  DefendantandAppellantAndrew &!" BunnerhasfiledanappealinthisCourt.Theappealseeksreviewofthe (#$ lowerCourtsdecisiontograntapreliminaryinjunctionagainstMr.Bunner *%& andothersinthisaction(DVDCopyControlAssociation,Inc.v.Andrew  Bunner,SuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV786804,AppellateCourtCaseno.  H021153).   ` 2. Petitioner,MATTHEWPAVLOVICH(hereafter    PAVLOVICH)isadefendantintheactionhereinafterdescribedandisa   partybeneficiallyinterestedherein.    ` 3. RespondentistheSuperiorCourtofSantaClaraCounty   (hereafter Respondent);(SuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV786804).   ` 4. Realpartyininterest,DVDCopyControlAssociationInc.  (Hereafter RealPartyor DVDCCA)istheplaintiffintheaction  hereinafterdescribedandisapartybeneficiallyinterestedinthis  proceeding.   ` 5. OnDecember27,1999,RealPartyinInterest,DVDCCA,  filedinRespondentCourtagainstthisPetitioner,asdefendant,acomplaint  numberedCV786804allegingasinglecauseofactionmisappropriationof   tradesecrets(Civ.Code3426etseq.).Thetradesecretmisappropriation " causeofactionisbasedontheallegationthatPetitionerrepublished $  informationthatisallegedtohavebeenmisappropriatedbyathirdparty &"" andrepeatedlyrepublishedthroughouttheInternet.Petitionerisoneof ($$ some521namedandDoedefendantswhohavebeensuedforallegedly *&& republishingthisinformationontheInternet.Numerousotherpublishersof  thesameinformationhavenotbeensued.Plaintiffandrealpartyininterest  isanotforprofittradeassociationwhosesolepurposeistolicensethe  informationknownastheContentScramblingSystemor CSS.Realparty   ininterestallegesthatportionsofitsCSSTechnologyweremisappropriated   byathirdpartyandpartiallyincorporatedintoanewtechnologycalled   DeCSS.Realpartyininterestallegesthatafterthethirdpartycreatorof   DeCSSpostedDeCSSontheInternet,Petitionerandotherdefendants  discoveredtheinformationpostedontheInternet,andthemselvesfurther  republishedtheinformationonvariousInternetwebsites.Atrueand  correctcopyofDVDCCAscomplaintisincludedas ExhibitAofthe  separatelyboundappendixofexhibits# L%  1      ׀filedconcurrentlyherewith,and  explicitlymadeaparthereof.   ` 6. PetitionermadenogeneralappearanceinRespondentCourt.  Rather,onJune6,2000,PetitionerappearedspeciallyinRespondentCourt   (pursuanttotheprovisionsof418.10oftheCodeofCivilProcedure)by " filingamotiontoquashserviceofsummonsonthegroundsthatthe $  RespondentCourtlackedjurisdictionofthepersonofthedefendant.Atrue &"" andcorrectcopyofPetitionersProofofService,NoticeofMotion,Points  andAuthoritiesinSupportofMotion,DeclarationofAllonnE.Levyin  supportofMotion,andDeclarationofMatthewPavlovichinSupportof  MotiontoQuashServiceofProcessisincludedas ExhibitBofthe   separatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledconcurrentlyherewith,and   explicitlymadeaparthereofbyreference.    ` 7. Followingastipulatedjurisdictionaldepositionanddocument   production,onAugust18,2000,RealPartyinInterestfileditsopposition  paperstoPetitionersmotion.AtrueandcorrectcopyofRealPartyin  Interestsopposingpapers,whichincludePointsandAuthoritiesin  OppositiontoMotiontoQuashServiceandtheDeclarationofJonathanS.  ShapiroinOppositiontoMotiontoQuashService,isincludedas Exhibit  Coftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledconcurrentlyherewith,  andexplicitlymadeaparthereofbyreference.   ` 8. OnAugust22,2000,Petitionerhereinfiledhisreplypapersin   responsetoDVDCCAsopposition.Atrueandcorrectcopyof " PetitionersReplyBriefinSupportofMotion,ReplydeclarationofAllonn $  E.LevyinSupportofMotion,andObjectionstoEvidenceSubmittedby &"" Plaintiffisincludedas ExhibitDoftheseparatelyboundappendixof ($$ exhibitsfiledconcurrentlyherewith,andexplicitlymadeaparthereofby *&& reference.   ` 9. AhearingwasheldbyRespondentCourtonAugust29,2000  atapproximately9:00a.m.inDepartment2oftheSantaClaraCounty  SuperiorCourt.AnorderdenyingPetitionersmotiontoquashserviceof   summonsforlackofjurisdictionwasservedbymailonallpartieson   August30,2000.Atrueandcorrectcopyofthecourtsorderisincludedas    ExhibitEoftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledconcurrently   herewith,andexplicitlymadeaparthereofbyreference.   ` 10. Atranscriptoftheproceedingsatthehearingofthemotion  wasorderedandatrueandcorrectcopyofsaidtranscriptisattachedhereto  as ExhibitFoftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiled  concurrentlyherewith,andexplicitlymadeaparthereofbyreference.   ` 11. RespondentCourthasnojurisdictionoverthePetitionerin  theabovedescribedactionwithinthemeaningof418.10oftheCodeof  CivilProcedurebecausePetitionerhashadalmostnocontactwiththeState   ofCalifornia,didnotpurposefullyavailhimselfoftheprivilegesor " protectionsofCalifornia,didnotexpresslyaimanyactiontoward $  California,didnotforeseeanyeffectofanactioninCalifornia,continuesto &"" resideoutsidetheStateofCaliforniaandhasnototherwisesubmittedtothe ($$ jurisdictionofthiscourt. *&&  ` 12. Atthetimethisactionwasfiled,Petitionerwasafulltime  studentatPurdueUniversityinIndiana.Petitionerdoesnotowntheweb  siteallegedtohaverepublishedDeCSS,didnotcreatetheDeCSScode,and  didnotpurposefullyorexpresslydirectactivityrelatedtotherepublication   towardsCalifornia.Petitionerisaformerstudent,EagleScout,andIEEE   member.PetitionerownsnopropertyinCalifornia,doesnobusinessin   California,doesnotresideinCalifornia,andhasnotraditionalcontacts   withCalifornia.Petitionerhaslimitedfinancialcapabilitiesandwouldbe  severelyprejudicedifforcedtodefendhimselfinCalifornia.   ` 13. Thispetitionforwritofmandateisexplicitlyauthorizedby  statuteasoutlinedinC.C.P.418.10(c).   ` 14. Petitionerwillsufferirreparableinjuryandsevereprejudiceif  RespondentCourtisnotcompelledtovacateitsorderdenyingPetitioners  motiontoquash,andfurthercompelledtoenteranewanddifferentorder  quashingserviceofprocessforlackofjurisdiction.Specifically,Petitioner   willbeforcedtodefendhimselfinanactionfarfromhishome,toproduce " witnesseslocatedindistantlandsoutsideofCalifornia,toproduce $  documentsfromoutsideofCalifornia,tofindresourcestosupportaforeign &"" defense,allwithoutbeingaffordedtheprotectionsofdueprocess,fairplay, ($$ andsubstantialjustice. *&&  ` 15. Petitionerhasnoplain,speedy,andadequateremedyinthe  ordinarycourseoflawtocompelRespondentCourttoquashtheserviceof  summonsinthatthisistheonlyproceedingauthorizedbystatutetoobtain  thereliefsought.    ` 16. Petitioner'spapersandactions,areintendedtoserveonlyasa   specialappearancepursuanttosection418.10oftheCaliforniaCodeof   CivilProcedure.Petitionerneitherconsentsnorsubmitstothejurisdiction   ofthisCourt,instead,contestingjurisdictionbywayofthispetition.  ̀ ` WHEREFORE,Petitionerprays:   ` 1. Thatthiscourtissueanalternativewritofmandatedirecting  RespondentCourttomakeandenteritsorderquashingtheserviceof  summonsonthisPetitionerortoshowcausebeforethiscourtinaspecified  timeandplacewhyithasnotdoneso;   ` 2. That,onthehearingofthispetitionandthereturntoit,ifany,   thiscourtissueapreemptorywritofmandatedirectingRespondentCourtto " soorder; $   ` 3. Forcostsofsuithereinincurred:and &""  ` 4. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthecourtmaydeem ($$ proper. *&& Ї*ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,< ,<x +  # #DATED:September11," USUS ,  2000" US , US   XHUBERSAMUELSONAPC  By:򀀀   0  ALLONNE.LEVY  %% 0  AttorneysforPetitioner  %% ЀMATTHEWPAVLOVICH #  #  x  x    XX   @    2   III  .3    VERIFICATION  A      ` I,AllonnE.Levy,amtheattorneyforPetitionerintheaboveentitled  proceeding.Ihavereadtheforegoingpetitionforwritofmandateand   knowthecontentsthereof.Thesameistrueofmyownknowledge.    ` IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateof   Californiathattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.   Date:___________________,2000  __________________________   `     h     AllonnE.Levy        2   IV  .3    MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORT  OFPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE  tE      `  2   A  .3  0 Introduction  F     `  PetitionerMATTHEWPAVLOVICHsubmitsthismemorandumin   supportofhispendingpetitionforwritofmandamuscompellingthelower   courttoquashserviceofprocess.IfRealPartyinInterest'stheoryof   jurisdictionispermittedtostand,thelowerCourt'sorderwillmarkanend   to150yearsoftraditionaljurisdictionalanalysisandwillcreateCalifornia  jurisdictionovervirtuallyeveryInternetuserintheworld.   `   GG  2   1  .3  0  QuestionPresented:  I      ` WhetherRealPartyinInterest,DVDCCAsatisfieditsburdenof  providingcompetentevidencetoprovesufficientminimumcontacts  betweenPetitionerandthestateofCaliforniatojustifythelowerCourt's  exerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoverPetitioner,withintheconfinesofDue ! Processandtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice.And, # assumingsuchcontactsexists,whethertheexerciseofjurisdictionis % ! reasonable. '"#  *%& Ї `   3J  2   2  .3  0  ShortAnswer:  M      ` No.DVDCCAprovidedinsufficientcompetentevidencetosupport  thelowerCourt'sfindingofjurisdictionunderCalifornia's"effects"testor  anyotherjurisdictionalanalysis,andanyexerciseofjurisdictionis   unreasonable.     M `  2   B  .3  0 NatureOfAction  NO     ` ThisisaFirstAmendmentcasewhereintheplaintiff,DVDCCA,   seekstoenjoinPetitionerPAVLOVICHandsome500otherdefendants  fromrepublishingapieceofcomputercodeidentifiedasDeCSS.When  implementedbyauser,DeCSSenablesconsumerstoplaylawfully  purchasedDVDswithouttheuseofasoftwareDVDplayerlicensedbyreal  partyDVDCCA.DVDCCAoperatessolelyasthelicensoroftheContent  ScramblingSystemor"CSS"technology.   ` Plaintiffclaimsthatitisentitledtorestrainthedefendantsrightto  republishthisspeech L%  2      ׀byallegingthecodeitselfincludesmisappropriated ! tradesecrets.DVDCCAspeculatesthataNorwegianindividualnamedJon #  JohansenauthoredDeCSSbyreverseengineeringCSSafterclickinga % ! softwareagreement L%  3      ׀prohibitingsuchreverseengineering.DVDCCA   furtherallegesthatMr.JohansenthenpostedtheDeCSScodeonthe  Internet,worldwide.DVDCCAfurtherallegesthatPetitionerherein,and  others,subsequentlyfoundDeCSSontheInternetandrepublishedit(see   Plaintiffscomplaintattachedasexhibit Afiledconcurrentlyherewith   andhereinafterreferredtoas"ExhibitA,atAPPT L%  4      .pp.221;Complaintat   p.13:1727;p.17:2428).DVDCCAbroughtthisactiontoenjoinPetitioner   andtheremaining500defendantsfromcontinuing L%  5      ׀torepublishthe  information(ExhibitAatAPP.p.20;Complaintatp.19).    `   2   1  .3  0  SitusandIdentificationofParties X     ` RealPartyinInterest,PlaintiffDVDCCAisaDelawarecorporation  withofficeslocatedinMorganHill,California,andisthelicensingentity  forthetechnologyknownasCSS(ExhibitA,atAPP.p.4;Complaintat  p.3:1217).   ` Petitioner,DefendantPAVLOVICHisanoutofstateresident  servedbyU.S.mailwhileastudentinIndianaandcurrentlyresidingin  Texas(SeePetitionersmovingpapersattachedas exhibitBtothe  Appendixofexhibits,hereinafter exhibitBatApp.pp.6668;Declaration   ofPAVLOVICHatpp.13).    `   2   2  .3  0  SummaryOfFactsReJurisdiction r\      ` Petitioner'sinvolvementinthiscaseislimitedtohisroleasan   allegedrepublisheroftheDeCSScodewhileenrolledasafulltimestudent  attheUniversityinIndiana(seeExhibitB,atAPP.p.6668;Declarationof  PAVLOVICH2:15;2:827).PlaintiffhasallegedthatPetitioner  PAVLOVICHisresponsibleforthepostingofDeCSSonthe  "www.livid.on.openprojects.net"website(seeExhibitAatAPP.p.6;  Complaintatp.5:1316),butofferednoprooftorebutPetitioner'sevidence  thathedoesnotownoroperateanysuchsite! L%  6      .   Ѐ ` Inreality,PAVLOVICHdidnotownoroperateanysitethat "  publishedDeCSS,howeverhedidconcedeforpurposesofthemotionto $  quashthathehadinput L%  7      ׀onsuchawebsite#XZXuP#uXXZ(SeeExhibitB,atAPP.p.67;   DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1727).SincePetitioner#XZXua#uXXZԀhadnothingto  dowiththecreationofDeCSS,anyliabilityonthepartofPAVLOVICH  wouldstemsolelyfromhisdiscoveryofapieceofcode(DeCSS)onthe   Internet,andhavinginputonawebsitethatallegedlyrepublishedthatcode.   Again,RealPartyinInteresthasofferednoprooftorefutethesefacts.    ` TheLiVidgroupwhichallegedlypublishedtheDeCSScodewasa   looseassociationofvolunteerswhowereinvolvedinLinuxopensource  projectsinvolvingvariousformsofvideoplayback4 L%  8      .PAVLOVICH  testifiedthattheLiVidprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHdidnothingontheprojectforlong  periodsoftime(ExhibitDatAPP.p.180;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat  52:211).DeCSSwasnotutilizedintheLiVidproject(ExhibitDat  APP.p.182;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat57:913),andPAVLOVICH  playednopartinthedevelopmentofDeCSS(ExhibitDatAPP.p.181;   DepositionofPAVLOVICHat56:2325).DVDCCAhasprovidedno  evidencetoshowthateitherLiVidorPAVLOVICHintentionallydirected  activitiestowardstheforumstate1 L%  9      .&V %u  #u %&Vh# ` PetitionerPAVLOVICHhasnoconnectionwithCalifornia.   PAVLOVICHdoesnotresideinCaliforniaanddoesnothaveanyregular   clientsorworkinCalifornia(ExhibitB,atAPP.pp6768;Declarationof   PAVLOVICHatpp.23).Furthermore,PAVLOVICHhasnever:solicited   businessinCalifornia;designatedaregisteredagentforserviceofprocess  inCalifornia;maintainedaplaceofbusinessinCalifornia;maintaineda  telephonelistinginCalifornia;maintainedabankaccountinCalifornia;or  evenvisitedCaliforniaforanybusinesspurpose(ExhibitB,atAPP.p.68;  DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat3:27).  ԀThewebsiteDVDCCAis  assumedtoattributetoPAVLOVICHintheircomplaintwasa"passive"  websitethatdidnotinvolvetheinteractiveexchangeofinformationwith  users,didnotsolicitorengageinbusinessactivities,anddidnotsolicit  contactwithCaliforniaresidents(ExhibitB,atAPP.pp.67;Declarationof  PAVLOVICHat2:1827).Further,PetitionerdidnotknowofDVDCCA's   existence,muchlessitssitusinCalifornia,priortothefilingofthislawsuit   andhasneverdonebusinesswithDVDCCA(ExhibitB,atAPP.p.68;   DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat3:79).Petitionerneitherdirectednor   expresslyaimedanyactivityorcontacttowardsCalifornia,muchlessany  activityorcontactspecificallyrelatedtothetradesecretcauseofactionthat  isthesubjectofthissuit(ExhibitB,atAPP.pp.6668;Declarationof  PAVLOVICHatpp.13;ExhibitD,atApp.pp.168169,178,179,180,185;  DepositionofPAVLOVICHatpp.1112,44:412,48:2225,52:211,  91:2225)% L%  10      . l   `  2   C  .3  0 SummaryOfArgument q     ` PetitionerPAVLOVICHasksthisCourttointerveneonhisbehalf, " toquashserviceofprocessonthegroundsthataCaliforniaCourtlacks $  powertoexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverhim.Petitionerisnota &!" CaliforniaresidentandisnotdomiciledinCalifornia,hasnocontacts,no  ties,norelationshipwithCalifornia,wasnotservedwithinCalifornia,and  hasnotconsentedtoorappearedintheCaliforniaaction(Pennoyerv.  Neff(1877)#u#uԀ95U.S.714,733).Additionally,Petitionerengagedinno   "expressaiming"ofactstowardsaCaliforniaresidentinvolvingthislawsuit   byDVDCCA(Calderv.Jones(1984)#ut#uԀ465U.S.783).Therefore,thereis   noconstitutionallysufficientbasisforanyCaliforniaCourttoassert   personaljurisdictionoverPetitioner.Accordingly,thisCourtissuethe  appropriatewrit,quashserviceofprocess,andsetasideanyexistingdefault  ordefaultjudgmentasvoidN L%  11      ׀(C.C.P.473(d);C.C.P.418.10(d)).   `  2   D  .3  0 BECAUSECALIFORNIALACKSPERSONAL  JURISDICTIONOVERPETITIONERPAVLOVICH,  THISCOURTSHOULDINTERVENEANDISSUETHE  REQUESTEDRELIEF   x    `   2   1  .3  0  StandardofReview  y     ` InassessingPetitionersrequestforrelief,ThisCourtmustcarefully ! scrutinizetheextensiverecordinthelowerCourt,toensurethereisnodue # processviolation.ReviewofthelowerCourt'sorderisgovernedbythe  followingprinciples:  8 ` (1)whereadefendantproperlymovestoquashoutofstate  serviceofprocessforlackofjurisdiction,theburdenofproof   isupontheplaintifftoestablishthefactsofjurisdictionbya   preponderanceoftheevidence;(2)evidenceofthosefactsor   theirabsencemaybeintheformofdeclarations...;(3)   wherethereisaconflictinthedeclarations,resolutionofthe   conflictbythetrialcourtwillnotbedisturbedonappealifthe   determinationofthatcourtissupportedbysubstantial   evidence.Substantialevidenceisnotdeemedsynonymous   withanyevidencebutratherofponderablelegalsignificance,   ...reasonableinnature,credible,andofsolidvalue  (citations).` x` x SammonsEnterprisesInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,  1430.  8 ` Wherethereisnoconflictintheevidence,thequestionof  personaljurisdictionisoneoflaw;insuchacase,thelower  court'sdeterminationisnotbindingonthereviewingcourt.` x` x {kJewishDefenseOrganization,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th  1045,1055.  Ѐ  (Here,thelowerCourtmadenofindingsoffact. L%  12      .Therefore,thisCourtis  entitledtoreviewthematterdenovo. !  ` Californiacourtsareempoweredtoexercisepersonaljurisdiction # onlytotheextentthatsuchanexerciseisconsistentwiththeStateor %!! FederalConstitution(CCP410.10).Acourtmayexercisepersonal '## jurisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantonlywhenthedefendanthassuch  minimumcontactswiththeforumstatethatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoes  notoffend"traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice"(Felixv.  BomoroKommanditgesellschaft(1987)196Cal.App.3d106,111[citing   InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington(1945)326U.S.310,316];   HelicopterosNacionalesdeColumbiav.Hall(1984)466U.S.408,414).   Such,minimumcontactsaremeasuredonacasebycasebasisandthe   ultimatetestiswhether"Californiahasasufficientrelationshipwiththe  [particular]defendantandlitigation[as]tomakeitreasonable( fair  play)..."torequirethedefendanttodefendthelitigationinCalifornia  (Weil&Brown,Cal.Prac.Guide:Civ.Pro.BeforeTrial,(TheRutterGroup  1999)3:202at341.2)O L%  13      .Additionally,anydefaultordefaultjudgment  enteredwithoutjurisdictionoverthedefendantisnecessarilyvoidPT L%  14      . x    `   2   2  .3  0  Thecourtlackspersonaljurisdictionover  defendantPAVLOVICH        !  ` Thepersonaljurisdictionanalysisisbrokendownintotwoquestions:  [1]does"general"jurisdictionexist;and[2]absent"general"jurisdiction,  does"specific"jurisdictionexist(seeBrownv.Watson(1989)207  Cal.App.3d1306,1312).Inotherwords:   8 ` Ifadefendanthassufficientextensive'contacts'withthe   forumstate,itmaybesubjecttosuitthereonallclaims   wherevertheyarise[i.e.,generaljurisdiction]....[In]other   cases,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontacts   dependsonanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthe   defendants,theforum,andthelitigation[i.e.,specific   jurisdiction]'.` x` x SammonsEnterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,  1432.  ЀInthiscase,thereisinsufficientevidencetosupportafindingofeither  "general"or"specific"jurisdiction.   `     2   a  .3  0 h GeneralJurisdictionIsAbsentInThisCase   h h   ` Generaljurisdictiondependsuponsubstantial,continuous,and  systematiccontactsbetweenthedefendantandtheforumstate(Perkinsv. ! BenguetMiningConsolidatedMiningCo.,(1952)342U.S.437,4474485 L%  15      ). # Inthiscase,Petitioner'scontactwithCaliforniaisanythingbutsubstantial, % ! continuous,orsystematic!itisessentiallynonexistent6 L%  16      .   ` PetitionerisaTexasresident,formerlyaresidentofIndiana.  PAVLOVICHdoesnothaveanyregularbusiness,clientsoremployeesin  California,hasneversolicitedbusinessinCalifornia,hasneverdesignateda   registeredagentforserviceofprocessinCaliforniaandhasnever   maintainedaplaceofbusinessinCaliforniaorevenatelephonelistingin   California.Hehasneverownedpropertyormaintainedabankaccountin   CaliforniaandhasneverevenbeentoCaliforniaforbusinesspurposes.  (SeegenerallyExhibitBatAPP.pp.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat  pp.13).   ` Inshort,PetitionerhasnotengagedinanyactivitiesinCalifornia,  muchlessanyactivitiesthatmaybedescribedassubstantial,continuous,or  systematic.Hence,thereisnobasisforCaliforniatoexercisegeneral  jurisdictionoverDefendantPAVLOVICH.SinceCaliforniahasnoreal  relationshipwiththisDefendant,itisnotreasonabletorequire   PAVLOVICHtodefendanypendinglitigationinCalifornia. "  $   `     2   b  .3  0 h SpecificJurisdictionIsSimilarlyAbsentIn  ThisCase te h h   ` Specificjurisdictiondependsuponashowingthatthenonresident  defendantpurposefullyestablishedcontactswiththeforumstate,thatthe   plaintiff'scauseofactionarisesoutofthedefendant'sforumrelated   contacts,andtheforum'sexerciseofpersonaljurisdictioncomportswith     fairplayandsubstantialjustice(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz(1985)471   U.S.462,472,47678;Cornelisonv.Chaney,(1976)16Cal.3d143,148).   Inotherwords:  8 ` Whereanonresidentdefendant'sactivitiesintheforumare  notsopervasiveastojustifytheexerciseofgeneral  jurisdictionoverhim,thenjurisdictiondependsuponthe  qualityandnatureofhisactivityintheforuminrelationtothe  particularcauseofaction....Thus,astherelationshipofthe  defendantwiththestateseekingtoexercisejurisdictionover  himgrowsmoretenuous,thescopeofjurisdictionalso  retractsandfairnessisassuredbylimitingthecircumstances  underwhichtheplaintiffcancompelhimtoappearand  defend.` x` x Brownv.Watson(1989)207Cal.App.3d1306,13121313,emphasis   added. " 8 ` Thus,specificjurisdictionisdeterminedunderathreepart $  test:'(1)Thenonresidentdefendantmustdosomeactor % ! consummatesometransactionwiththeforumorperform &!" someactbywhichhepurposefullyavailshimselfofthe '"# privilegeofconductingactivitiesintheforum,thereby (#$ invokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws;(2)theclaim )$% mustbeonewhicharisesoutoforresultsfromthe *%& defendant'sforumrelatedactivities;and(3)exerciseof  jurisdictionmustbereasonable.` x` x (JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th  1045,1054,citingPanavisionIntern.,L.P.v.Toeppen141F.3d1316,1320  (9thCir.1998)).   Here,petitionerhasnotdirectedanyactivityatCaliforniafromwhichthe   causeofactioncanbesaidtohavearisen.Further,anyrelationship   betweenPetitionerandtheforumstate(California)issotenuousthat,in   fairness,jurisdictioncannotexist.    `     h  2  (  1  )3  0  PAVLOVICHhashadnopurposeful  contactwithCaliforniaandhasnot  purposefullyavailedhimselfofthe  benefitsoftheforumstate    te0  ` ThiscasedoesnotinvolvepurposefulcontactbetweenDefendant  andCalifornia,asthetermisusedinjurisdictionalanalysis.A"purposeful"  contactisoneinwhichaparticulardefendanthasdeliberatelydirected  his/heractivitiesattheresidentsoftheforumstateorhasdeliberately  availedhimself/herselfofthebenefitsandprotectionsofthelawsofthe ! forumstate(Hansonv.Denckla,(1958)357U.S.235,253254;SeeAlso # Sibleyv.SuperiorCourt,(1976)16Cal.3d442,447448).Statedinthe % ! converse,personaljurisdictiondoesnotextendtoanonresidentdefendant '"# byvirtueof"random,fortuitousorattendant..."contactsoverwhichthe )$% defendanthadnocontrol(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,(1985)471U.S.462,  47576,485).Furthermore,unilateralactivityonthepartoftheplaintiffor  others7 L%  17      ׀overwhomthenonresidentdefendanthasnocontroldoesnot  translateintoapurposefulcontactonthepartofthedefendant   (HelicopterosNacionalesv.Hall,(1984)466U.S.408,416417).    ` Inthiscase,PetitionerwasafulltimestudentinIndianaduringthe   timeperiodoutlinedinthecomplaint,andnevertransactedbusinesswith   anyoneinCalifornia8T L%  18      .Furthermore,PAVLOVICHdidnotexerciseany  controloveranyoneinCaliforniaandneversolicitedcontactswith  Californiaresidentsthroughthewebsiteidentifiedinthecomplaint  (ExhibitB,atAPP.p.6768;DeclarationofPavlovichatpp.23).Assuming,  arguendo,thatanyCaliforniaresidentcontactedthesubjectwebsite,such  contactwouldhavebeensimplyfortuitous.Thewebsitemerelycontained  informationavailabletoanyInternetuseranddidnottargetorinanyway  solicitCaliforniaresidents(ExhibitB,atAPP.pp67;Declarationof   Pavlovichat2:1727).Additionally,PAVLOVICHcannothavetargeted " hisactionateitherDVDCCAorCaliforniasincehewasnotawareofthe $  existenceofDVDCCA(muchlesstheirplaceofbusiness)priortothe  filingofthislawsuit: L%  19      .Accordingly,totheextentthatDefendant  PAVLOVICHmaybeinvolvedintheeventswhicharethesubjectofthis  lawsuit,hisinvolvementcannotbedescribedasapurposefulcontactwith   California.    `     h 0  (a)0   TheWebsiteinquestionwas   merelypassiveandcannot   satisfytheeffectstests     #uu#uCourt'shaveestablishedguidelinesincyberspacecaseswheretheplaintiff  attemptstoutilizethe"effectstest"(Calderv.Jones465U.S.783(1984))  tosatisfythe"purposefulavailment"requirementofspecificjurisdiction:  8 ` [T]helikelihoodthatpersonaljurisdictioncanbe  constitutionallyexercisedisdirectlyproportionatetothe  natureandqualityofcommercialactivitythatanentity  conductsovertheInternet.Thisslidingscaleisconsistent  withwelldevelopedpersonaljurisdictionprinciples.Atone  endofthespectrumaresituationswhereadefendantclearly  doesbusinessovertheInternet.Ifthedefendantentersinto  contractswithresidentsofaforeignjurisdictionthatinvolve  theknowingandrepeatedtransmissionofcomputerfilesover   theInternet,personaljurisdictionisproper.[Citation.]Atthe ! oppositeendaresituationswhereadefendanthassimply " postedinformationonanInternetWebsitewhichis # accessibletousersinforeignjurisdictions.apassiveWebsite $  thatdoeslittlemorethanmakeinformationavailabletothose %!! whoareinterestedinitisnotgroundsfortheexerciseof &"" personaljurisdiction.[Citation]'##` x` x  ($$ (JewishDefenseOrganizationv.SuperiorCourt,supra,at1060R L%  20      )  ; ` Here,any effectsinCaliforniawouldnecessarilyhavecomefrom  therepublicationoftheDeCSSinformationthroughtheInternetwebsite.a  reviewoftheevidenceshowsthatPAVLOVICHhasatmostS@ L%  21      ׀offered   informationonapassivewebsite.Assuming,arguendo,thatthe   informationreachedCaliforniaresidentssuchcontactswouldbesimply   fortuitusandinsufficienttoestablishspecificjurisdiction(Id;andseealso   Cybersell,Inc.v.Cybersell,Inc(9thCir.1997)130F.3d414).   ` InJewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,  CaliforniasSecondDistrictCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourt's  denialofadefendant'smotiontovacatedefaultjudgmentandquashservice  wherepublicationofinformationthroughawebsiteallegedlycaused  harmfuleffectsinCalifornia.IntheJ.D.Ocase,theDefendantactually  ownedoroperatedthesubjectsite,hadmadeallegedlydefamatory  statements(thesubjectofthelawsuit)onhisWebsite,usedtheU.S.mailto   contactaCaliforniaresident,previouslyresidedinCalifornia,wasawareof " theplaintiff'ssitusinCalifornia,andcontractedwithaCaliforniaInternet  serviceprovider(ISP)tohosttheWebsiteinquestion.Yet,theAppellate  Courtproperlyconcludedthatthesecontactswereinsufficienttosupportan  exerciseofjurisdiction.    ` Intheinstantcase,theforumcontactsareevenlesssubstantialthan   thoseinJewishDefenseOrganization.PAVLOVICHhashadnocontacts   withCaliforniaandisonlyallegedtohaveofferedinformationonapassive   website.Thus,thisCourtshouldfollowtheholdinginJewishDefense  Organization,andquashserviceofprocessbasedonalackofpurposeful  availment.   `     h  2  (  2  )3  0  TheClaimdoesnotarisefrom  PAVLOVICHsforumrelated  activities In     ` DVDCCAhasalsofailedtoprovidecompetentevidencetosatisfy  thesecondprongofthespecificjurisdictiontest.Here,DVDCCAscause  ofactiondoesnotrelatetoanylocalactivitiesonthepartofPetitioner ! PAVLOVICH.Personaljurisdictionisrestrictedtosituationswherea # particularcauseofactionrelatestoor arisesoutofthedefendant'sforum % ! relatedactivities(JewishDefenseOrganization,supra,at1054andPerkins '"# v.BenguetConsolidatedMiningCo.,(1952)342U.S.437,444445). )$%  ` Inthiscase,plaintiffhasallegedthatdefendantPAVLOVICH  misappropriatedDVDCCA'stradesecretsbydiscoveringtheDeCSS  informationonline(followingitsworldwidepublicationbyothersonthe  Internet)andthenrepublishingthesamepreviouslypublishedtradesecrets   anew, L%  22      .Thereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoa   CaliforniaresidentthatcausedDVDCCA'sallegedharm,orthat   PAVLOVICHintendedtoharmDVDCCAinCalifornia L%  23      .Indeed,   whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthis  particularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim.Thus,itcannotbesaid  thattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontact  withthisforum.   ` BecausethecauseofactiondoesnotariseoutofPetitioner'sforum  relatedactivities,DVDCCAhasbeenunabletopointtoanysuchrelevant  forumcontacts.Instead,RealPartyinInteresthasprovidedspeculative  evidencethatPAVLOVICHbelievedthemotionpictureindustryandthe   computerindustryingeneraldobusinessinCalifornia" L%  24      .Thisdespitethe " factthatDVDCCAitselfisneitheracomputerproducernoramovie  producer.   `     h 0  (a)0  DVDCCA'sreadingofthe   effectstestiscontraryto   establishedlawandviolativeof   DueProcess     g   ` IntheseminalcaseofofCalderv.Jones465U.S.783(1984),and    itswellknown CaldereffectstesttheSupremeCourtfoundthatwhenan   individualengagesin"expressaiming"andsatisfiesthe"effectstest,"   jurisdictionisavailable!theHighCourtdidnotholdthatwhereanyeffect,  ofanysort,isfeltwithinastatejurisdictionwillfollow3h L%  25      .   ` InCalder,thedefendantsold600,000magazines(morethaninany  otherstate)inCalifornia,frequentlytraveledtoCalifornia,madephone  callstoCaliforniatoobtaintheinformationthatwentintothearticlewhich  wasthesubjectofthelawsuit,calledtheCaliforniaplaintiffsinCalifornia  tosolicitacommentaboutthesubjectarticle,knewtheplaintiffsresidedin  California,anddeclinedtoprintaretractionrequestsentbytheCalifornia ! plaintiffs(Id,at783786).Thus,theCalderCourthadnodifficultyin # findingthatthedefendanthadpurposefullyandexpresslyaimedcontactsat  CaliforniaandthatthecauseofactionaroseoutofthoseCalifornia  contacts.   ` TheSupremeCourtinCaldernoted:   8 ` petitionersarenotchargedwithmereuntargetednegligence.   Rather,theirintentional,andallegedlytortious,actionswere   expresslyaimedatCalifornia...Petitioner[s]...knew[their   actions]wouldhaveapotentiallydevastatingimpactupon   respondent[theplaintiff].Andtheyknewthebruntofthat   injurywouldbefeltbyrespondentintheStateinwhichshe   livesandworksandinwhichtheNationalEnquirerhasits  largestcirculation.` x` x Calderat789790.   ` SimilarlyinPanavisionInterl,L.P.v.Toeppen,(9thCir.1998)141  F.3d1316,theCourtfoundjurisdictiononthebasisofthedefendants  targetedextortionschemeaimeddirectlyatplaintiff L%  26      ׀Panavision(Idat  1319).TheschemeincludeddirectcontactwiththeCaliforniabusiness,  relatingtothesubjectofthecase,andanattemptatobtaining$13,000in  exchangeforPanavisionstrademarkeddomainnames(Idat1319). !  ` Bystarkcontrast,here,PAVLOVICHwasastudentinIndianawhen # thissuitwasinstituted,hisnewlyformedbusinesshasnothingtodowith %!! thiscase(seeExhibitD,atAPP.pp.168169;DepositionofPAVLOVICH '## atpp.1112)andhasnoconnectionwithanyonefromCalifornia(see  ExhibitD,atAPP.pp.178,179;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat44:412;  48:2225).Additionally,PAVLOVICHhadnoknowledgeofplaintiff  DVDCCAsexistence,muchlessitslocation,priortothefilingofthe   instantlawsuit(seeExhibitD,atAPP.p.185;DepositionofPAVLOVICH   at91:2225).Also,plaintiffhasnotcontestedthefactthatPAVLOVICH   hasneitheroperated,norhadsolecontroloverany LiVidwebsiteQ L%  27      ׀that   mayhavecontainedDeCSS(seeExhibitBatAPP.pp.6667;Declarationof  PAVLOVICHat2:1527).Alsonotindisputeisthefactthat  PAVLOVICHdidnotdevelopanypartofDeCSS(seeExhibitDat  APP.p.181;TestimonyofPAVLOVICHat56:2324)andthatDeCSSwas  notutilizedintheLiVidproject(ExhibitDatAPP.p.182;Depositionof  PAVLOVICHat57:913).Itissimilarlyuncontrovertedthat Neitherthe  site,northeinformationonthesite,wasspecificallydirectedatcitizensof  California(ExhibitBatAPP.p.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:23   26)andthatnopartofthepostingcamefromanyknownCaliforniacontact. " Ѐ ` In&V %uԀ#& % %&V޳#&V % %&#u %&V#ascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,aCourtmay $  onlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecific &"" causeofactionathand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews  (9thCir.1996)&V %uԀ#u %&VO#95F.3d829,835,itmaynotconsidercontactsthatrelateto  allegedharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction.   ` Inthecaseatbar,Plaintiffisatechnologylicencingentity(Exhibit   C,atAPP.p.77;Oppositionbrief3:1618).Itisasmallandfairlyobscure9 L%  28         organizationchargedwithlicensingCSStechnology.Itisnotamovie   producer,orastudio,anditislocatedinMorganHillCalifornia!not   Hollywood.ThusanygeneralknowledgePAVLOVICHhadaboutamovie  industryspresenceinCalifornia,oraComputerindustrypresencein  Californiaisofnoconsequence!toholdotherwisewouldcreateCalifornia  asapermanentlegalforumforeverysingledisputetangentiallyrelatedto  eitherindustry.   ` Forthe effectstesttobeconstitutional,boththepurposeful  directingofactivityandthesubstantialconnectiontothelawsuitmustexist  (seeGoehringv.SuperiorCourt(1998)62Cal.App.4th894,908911;   Bancroft&MastersInc.v.AugustaNationalInc.(9thCir.2000)__f.3d__, " 2000U.S.App.LEXIS20917,2000C.D.O.S6941,2000D.A.R.9197).In $  Goehring,theCourtdeniedjurisdictionbecausetheindividualsforum &"" contactswerenot substantiallyconnectedtothecauseofaction.In  Bancroft,theCourtfoundjurisdictionbecausetheDefendantknewthe  identityandlocationofthePlaintiffwhenitundertooktheintentionalacts,  aimedatthatplaintiff,whichgaverisetothelawsuit(seeBancroft   generally),thussatisfyingthe expressaimingrequirementofCalder.    ` IftheCourtweretofollowthelogicputforthbyplaintiffs,insteadof   thelawasoutlinedinCalder,Panavision,Bancroft,andGoehring,the   resultswouldbeabsurd.Holdingthatmereknowledgeofanindustry  presenceinaparticularforumprovidesjurisdictionforanydisputeremotely  touchingonthatindustryssubjectmatterwouldoffendDueProcessand  leadtoanobliterationoftraditionaljurisdictionalrequirements.   ` Petitionerismerelyarepublisherofinformationfoundonthe  Internet.Heneverknewoftheexistenceoftheonlyadversepartyinthis  case,muchlessintendedhisactivitytoaffectaCaliforniaparty.Itiswell  settledthatpersonaljurisdictiondoesnotextendtoanonresidentdefendant   byvirtueof"random,fortuitousorattendant..."contactsoverwhichthe " defendanthadnocontrolY L%  29      ׀(BurgerKing,supra,at485).Similarly,just $  postinginformationonawebsitewithout expressaimingis likeplacing  aproductintothestreamofcommerce,[itseffects]maybefeltnationwide  orevenworldwide!but,withoutmore,itisnotanactpurposefullydirected  towardtheforumstateX L%  30      Cybersellv.Cybersell(9thCir.1997)130F.3d   414,418.    ` Inshort,PAVLOVICHdidnotinteractwiththeplaintiff(asisthe   caseinCalder,McGee,Panavision,Bancroft,andother effectscases),   didnotdirectactivitiesatCalifornia,anddidnotpurposefullyinteractwith  Californiansinconjunctionwiththeinstantcase.Assuch,Californiahas  nojurisdictionoverhim.     `     h  2  (  3  )3  0  Exerciseofjurisdictionwouldnotbe  reasonableinthiscase  a     ` Finally,itisunreasonable,andthusconstitutionallyoffensive,to  imposepersonaljurisdictioninthiscase.Inascertainingreasonablenessin  applyingpersonaljurisdiction,Courtsbalanceanumberoffactors   including: " 8 ` Theinterestofthestateinprovidingaforumforitsresidents $  orinregulatingthebusinessinvolved...;therelative % ! availabilityoftheevidenceandtheburdenofdefenseand &!" prosecutioninoneplaceratherthananother...;theeaseof '"# accesstoanalternativeforum...;theavoidanceofmultiplicity  ofsuitsandconflictingadjudications...;andtheextentto  whichthecauseofactionaroseoutofdefendant'slocal  activities....` x` x FisherGovernorCo.v.SuperiorCourt,(1959)53Cal.2d222,22526.    ` Todate,thedefenseisawareofonlyoneCaliforniawitnessessential   totheprosecutionanddefenseofthisaction,Mr.JohnHoy.Bycontrast,an   arrayofwitnessesthatcouldprovideinformationinthiscaseareavailable   fromNorway,toJapan,toEngland,toNewYorkandConnecticut.The   factthattwosimilarcasesarecurrentlybeingprosecutedinConnecticutI L%  31        andNewYorkJ L%  32      ׀makesitclearthatthiscasecouldbetriedinanynumberof  otheravailableforums.Also,sinceCaliforniahasadoptedtheUniform  TradeSecretsAct,theplaintiffhastheabilitytoprosecutethesameclaim  inanynumberofotherjurisdictions.Additionally,therearenooverriding  policyconsiderationsthatcompelCaliforniatoassertjurisdictionover  PAVLOVICH,anindividualTexasresidentandformerIndianastudent.   ` ThiscasehasnothingtodowithanyactivitiesthatDefendant ! performedinCalifornia.Inpointoffact,PAVLOVICHhasperformedno # activitiesinCalifornia,didnotsolicitorengageintransactionswith %!! California,andcertainlyengagedinnoactivitieswithCaliforniathatgave  risetothependinglitigation.   ` BecausePAVLOVICHisdomiciledinTexasandemployedinTexas  atanewfledglingcompany(seeExhibitBatAPP.p.67;Declarationof   PAVLOVICH2:1012;2:17),andhasnocontactwith,orreasontocome   to,California(seeExhibitBatAPP.pp.6768;DeclarationofPAVLOVICH   pp.23),itwouldnecessarilybeasubstantialburdenonPAVLOVICHto   defendthisactioninCalifornia,totransportwitnessesandevidenceto  California,tohireCaliforniatrialcounsel,topayfortemporaryhousingin  Californiaduringthetrialandtoarrangeforhousingandtransportfor  necessarywitnesses(seeExhibitBatAPP.p.68;Declarationof  PAVLOVICH3:1017).   ` Withtheabovefactorsinmind,itisevidentthatthebalanceweighs  heavilyagainstjurisdictioninCalifornia.Therefore,andintheinterestsof  fairplayandsubstantialjustice,Californiashouldnotimposejurisdiction   onPetitioner. "     2   V  .3   % ! CONCLUSION    '"#    ` IndividualinteractionanddiscourseontheInternetis,byall )$% accountsinitsinfancy!creatingnewlawthattransformstheInternetintoa  liabilityminefield,withworldwideCaliforniajurisdiction,wouldseverely  chillthedevelopmentandgrowthofthismedium.ThehighCourthas  notedthattheInternetisoneofthegreatestdemocratictoolsofthe21st   century(Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesunion,(1997)521U.S.844,   851).Itisa"uniqueandwhollynewmediumofworldwidehuman   communication"whichdisseminates"contentasdiverseashumanthought"   (Idat883,884).Itwouldbeanunreasonableandfundamentally  unconstitutionaldecision,thatwouldtoleratethefindingofjurisdiction  basedonthetenuousconnectionofaparticularpublicationontheInternet  andthegeneralreputationofaparticularforumstate L%  33      .      ` Foralloftheabovereasons,andforthoseoutlinedinPetitioners  exhibits,Californiacannotbepermittedtoexercisepersonaljurisdiction  overPetitionerPAVLOVICHwithoutdeprivingPetitionerofhis  constitutionallyprotectedrighttodueprocessoflaw.Itistherefore   respectfullyrequestedthatthiscourtintervene,grantthereliefrequestedin   thepetition,andcompelthelowercourttoquashserviceforlackof   jurisdiction.-X@ XX-   *x=>dd< <<x <  x, ," +  ," ,DATED:September11," USUS ,  2000" US , US ' ''X@ h'HUBERSAMUELSONAPC  By:   F     0  ALLONNE.LEVY   0  AttorneysforDefendant   0  MATTHEWPAVLOVICH   ( ( XX  x )  @``" TABLEOFCONTENTS    Title B  Page   +   V  V8 `    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#  C .#` x` x#iiiV݌   Ќ  V  V8 `    I.0` ` x` xINTRODUCTION#d d E . ` x` x#2V݌   Ќ  V  V8 `    II.0` ` x` xPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE#d d E .0` x` x#2V݌   Ќ  V  V8 `    III.0` ` x` xVERIFICATION#D .HH ` x` x#10V݌   Ќ  V  Va8 `    IV.0` ` x` xMEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESIN   SUPPORTOFPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE#D .NN;` x` x#11Va}݌  Ќ  $  $窒8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xIntroduction#D .% x x#11$窒݌  Ќ  &P  &Py8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxQuestionPresented:#D .1xx#11&Py݌  Ќ  &P  &P{8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxShortAnswer:#D .+xx#12&P{݌  Ќ  $  $w8 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xNatureOfAction#D .) x x#12$w݌  Ќ  &P  &Pb8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxSitusandIdentificationofParties#D .``Axx#13&Pb~݌  Ќ  &P  &Pt8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxSummaryOfFactsReJurisdiction#D .>xx#14&Pt݌  Ќ  V  V8 `     ` C.0 ` x` xSummaryOfArgument#D ., x x#17V݌ ! Ќ  $  $i8 ` 0 ` x` x `   D.0 x xBecauseCalifornialackspersonaljurisdictionover # petitionerPavlovich,thiscourtshouldinterveneand $  issuetherequestedrelief#D .3 x x#18$i݌ % ! Ќ  &P  &P 8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxStandardofReview#D .0xx#18&P  !݌ '"# Ќ   *%& Ї   TABLEOFCONTENTS  N " Title B  Page  L  &P  &P"8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxThecourtlackspersonaljurisdictionover J  defendantPAVLOVICH#D .||1xx#20&P""݌ J Ќ  '  '#8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx    a.0hhxhxGeneralJurisdictionIsAbsentInThis J  Case#D .  'hxhx#21'#$݌ J  Ќ  '  '+%8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx    b.0hhxhxSpecificJurisdictionIsSimilarlyAbsent J  InThisCase#D ./hxhx#22'+%G%݌ J  Ќ  (P  (Px&8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx0hxhx h   (1)0xxPAVLOVICHhashadno J purposefulcontactwithCalifornia J andhasnotpurposefullyavailed J himselfofthebenefitsofthe J forumstate0pxx#D .pp2pxpx#24(Px&&݌ J Ќ  (P  (Px(8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx0hxhx h   (2)0xxTheClaimdoesnotarisefrom J PAVLOVICHsforumrelated J activities#D .2xx#28(Px((݌ J Ќ  '  ')8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx     h (3)0hxhxExerciseofjurisdictionwouldnot J  bereasonableinthiscase#D .TTBxx#35')*݌ J! Ќ  V  Va+8 `    V.0` ` x` x0 ` x` xCONCLUSION#D .((# x x#37Va+}+݌ J# Ќ     J$   hu@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  N @qq$ FEDERALCASES  L   #uh,#hu PBancroft&Mastersv.AugustaNatlInc., J   (9thCir.2000)__f.3d__pp< .ll332#uh`-#hu,33,34 J   J #uh8.#huBurgerKingv.Rudzewicz J   (1985),471U.S.462; ..23,24,25,34#uh.#hu J   J  Calderv.Jones,#uhj/#hu(1984)#uh/#huԀ465U.S.7835 .918,26,30,31,34,35 J   J  Cybersell,Inc.v.Cybersell,Inc J   #uh60#hu(9thCir.1997)#uh%1#hu130F.3d414= .rr527,33,34 J #uhw1#hu J Gordyv.DailyNews,(9thCir.1996)95F.3d829D .||E32#uh2#huԈ J  J Hansonv.Denckla,(1958),357U.S.235D .<24 J  J HelicopterosNacionalesdeColumbiav.Hall J  (1984),466U.S.408A .-20,25 J  J #uh2#huInternationalShoeCo.v.Washington J  (1945)326U.S.310D .,20 J #uh>4#hu J  PanavisionIntern.,L.P.v.Toepen J!  #uh5#hu(9thCir.1998)#uh5#huԀ141F.3d13168 .623,24,31,34,35 J"  J# Pennoyerv.Neff,(1877)95U.S.714D .HH918 J$  J% Perkinsv.BenguetMiningConsolidatedMiningCo., J&   (1952)342U.S.437> .,21,28,29 J' !  J(!" Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion, J)"#  (1997)521U.S.844D .,38 J*#$  J+$% World-WideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson, N  (1980),444U.S.286D ..20 N  N   P@*   STATECASES  L  :9  PBrownv.Watson(1989),207Cal.App.3d1306A .@21,23 J   J  Cornelisonv.Chaney(1976),16Cal.3d143D .TT>23 J  J  #uh6#huEdmondsv.SuperiorCourt(1994),24Cal.App.4th221D .00H30 J   J  #uh:#huFelixv.BomoroKommanditgesellschaft J   (1987),196Cal.App.3d106D .<<320 J   J  FisherGovernorCo.v.SuperiorCourt(1959),53Cal.2d222D .HHP36 J  J FloveyorInt.Ltdv.SuperiorCourt J  (1997),59Cal.App.4th789D .BB420 J  J #uhr;#huGoehringv.SuperiorCourt J  (1998),62Cal.App.4th894> .BB432,33,34 J #uh=#hu J JewishDefenseOrganization,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt J  (1999),72Cal.App.4th1045/ .619,23,24,26,27,28,29,32 J  J KLMv.SuperiorCourt,(1951),107Cal.App.2d495D .~~F21 J   J! SammonsEnterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt J"  (1988),205Cal.App.3d1427A .419,21 J#  J$ SecrestMachineCorp.v.SuperiorCourt J%  (1983),33Cal.3d664D .\\/21 J&   J' ! Sibleyv.SuperiorCourt(1976),16Cal.3d442D .ttC24 J(!"  J)"#  J*#$  J+$% Ї @  # DOCKETEDCASES  N  L  UniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes L  CaseNo.300CV721#uhs>#huRNC,(D.Ct)#uhC#huԀD .||736 L   L  ЀDVDCopyControlAssociation,Inc.v.AndrewBunner L   SuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV-786804, L   AppellateCourtCaseNo.H021153d d E .:2 L   L UniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdes,etal. L   CaseNo.00Civ.0277(LAK),D .436 L    P#uhMC#hu@& STATUTES  L   #uhE#hu PC.C.P.418.10pp< .XX!4,6,7,8,18 J  J #uh+F#huC.C.P.473D . 18#uhF#huԈ J  J Civ.Code3426etseqd d E .||+3 J  J Evidencecode350D .nn'16#uhIG#huԈ J  J Evidencecode412D .nn'16 J  J Evidencecode702D .nn'16 J   J! Evidencecode800D .nn'16 J"  J# Evidencecode1520-1523D .-16#uhJH#