## Facts

- Pebble Beach Company operated a well-known California golf resort and used “Pebble Beach” as a trade name and mark, including through a website.
- Michael Caddy, a U.S./U.K. dual citizen residing in the United Kingdom, operated a small bed-and-breakfast, restaurant, and bar in England named “Pebble Beach.”
- Caddy advertised his English business through a website that provided information (including prices in pounds sterling) and allowed users to submit inquiries but did not allow online reservations or payments.
- Pebble Beach sued Caddy in the Northern District of California under the Lanham Act and California unfair competition law, alleging intentional trademark infringement and dilution.
- Caddy moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Pebble Beach sought jurisdictional discovery.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied jurisdictional discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether California could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a U.K. resident operating an English business and a largely passive informational website in a trademark infringement/dilution action.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery aimed at establishing personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Applying the Calder “effects test,” the court held Pebble Beach failed to show Caddy expressly aimed conduct at California or the United States.
- The court treated Caddy’s website as essentially passive and insufficient, without more, to constitute purposeful direction at the forum.
- The Ninth Circuit also affirmed denial of jurisdictional discovery, finding no abuse of discretion where the jurisdictional theory was speculative and unlikely to be altered by further discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Specific jurisdiction requires (1) purposeful direction or purposeful availment, (2) claims arising out of forum-related conduct, and (3) reasonableness; in tort-like trademark cases, purposeful direction is evaluated under Calder.
- Under Calder, foreseeable harm in the forum is insufficient absent “something more” showing conduct expressly aimed at the forum.
- Operating a foreign business with a passive or minimally interactive website accessible in the forum does not, by itself, establish minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction.
- A district court may deny jurisdictional discovery when the plaintiff offers only attenuated or speculative jurisdictional allegations and lacks a concrete basis to believe discovery will establish jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a U.K. innkeeper’s locally oriented English operations and largely non-interactive website were not expressly aimed at California, so California courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction in a trademark suit; it also upheld the denial of jurisdictional discovery as a proper exercise of discretion.


Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006)