## Facts

- John Sanderson and George Taylor, California physicians, operated a blog that criticized a skincare product sold through a multi-level marketing company.
- Douglas Burdick, an Illinois resident with no alleged personal or financial ties to California, worked as a consultant connected to the product’s business.
- While in Illinois, Burdick posted allegedly defamatory statements on his publicly available personal Facebook page, referring to a “Blogging scorpion” and making accusations implying misconduct.
- The post did not identify Sanderson or Taylor by name, but they alleged readers would understand the post to refer to them.
- Burdick later removed the post while still in Illinois.
- Sanderson and Taylor sued Burdick and other defendants in California for defamation and related intentional torts.

## Issues

1. Whether California courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident for defamation based solely on a publicly accessible Facebook post made (and removed) out of state, with knowledge the plaintiffs reside in California.
2. Whether the “effects test” for intentional torts is satisfied when alleged reputational harm is foreseeably suffered in California but the defendant’s conduct is not directed at California as a forum.
3. Whether plaintiffs should be allowed jurisdictional discovery after failing to show adequate minimum contacts on the existing record.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief in part.
- The court held that posting allegedly defamatory statements on a publicly available Facebook page, while knowing the subject resides in California, is insufficient by itself to establish minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying Burdick’s motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court instructed the trial court to decide in the first instance whether to permit jurisdictional discovery relevant to personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction requires minimum contacts created by the defendant’s forum-related conduct, not by the plaintiff’s residence, injuries felt in the forum, or acts of others.
- In intentional tort cases, the “effects test” requires: (1) an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum.
- Foreseeable in-forum harm and knowledge of the plaintiff’s forum residence do not alone satisfy the “express aiming” requirement; the defendant must direct conduct at the forum itself.
- Public internet speech accessible everywhere does not, without additional forum-directed facts (e.g., targeting or California-specific direction), establish express aiming for jurisdictional purposes.
- When the existing record does not establish minimum contacts, a court may consider allowing jurisdictional discovery to determine whether additional facts support jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court held that California could not assert specific personal jurisdiction over an Illinois defendant based only on an out-of-state, publicly accessible Facebook post about California residents, absent conduct expressly aimed at California, and it ordered the trial court to vacate the denial of the motion to quash while considering jurisdictional discovery.


Burdick v. Superior Court, 233 Cal. App. 4th 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)