Burdick v. Superior Court
233 Cal.App. 4th 8 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Posting allegedly defamatory statements on a publicly available social media page, while knowing the subject of the statements resides in the forum state, is insufficient by itself to establish specific personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have expressly aimed or intentionally targeted their conduct at the forum state itself, not merely at the plaintiff who resides there.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs John Sanderson and George Taylor, both residents of California, maintained an internet blog called BareFacedTruth.com, which discussed skincare science.
- In June 2012, Plaintiffs began publishing blog entries that questioned the safety and efficacy of a skin care product called NeriumAD.
- Defendant Douglas Burdick, an Illinois resident, served as a 'Corporate Consultant' for Nerium International, the company that marketed NeriumAD.
- In November 2012, while in Illinois, Burdick made a post on his personal, publicly available Facebook page.
- The post referred to a 'Blogging scorpion' and promised to reveal negative information, including why 'he' lost his medical license from the Medical Board of California and how many times 'he' had been charged with domestic violence.
- Although not named, Plaintiffs alleged the post clearly referred to them and was part of a campaign to harass them.
- Burdick had no other significant connections to California; he did not live there, own property, maintain bank accounts, or conduct business in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- John Sanderson and George Taylor sued Douglas Burdick and others in the California Superior Court (a trial court) for libel and other intentional torts.
- Burdick, an Illinois resident, filed a special appearance and a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Burdick's motion to quash, finding jurisdiction was proper under the 'effects' test.
- Burdick (Petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court) to compel the trial court to grant his motion.
- The Court of Appeal summarily denied the writ petition.
- The California Supreme Court granted Burdick's petition for review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to reconsider its ruling in light of the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case, Walden v. Fiore.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a nonresident defendant's act of posting allegedly defamatory statements on a personal, publicly available Facebook page, while knowing the plaintiff resides in the forum state, create sufficient minimum contacts to subject the defendant to specific personal jurisdiction in that state?
Opinions:
Majority - Fybel, J.
No. Posting defamatory statements on a Facebook page, even with knowledge that the subject of the statements resides in the forum state, is insufficient on its own to create the minimum contacts required for specific personal jurisdiction. The analysis requires that the nonresident defendant's conduct must connect him to the forum in a meaningful way, and this is not achieved by merely causing an effect on a plaintiff who lives there. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Walden v. Fiore, the court clarified that the 'effects test' from Calder v. Jones requires the defendant to have 'expressly aimed' or 'intentionally targeted' the forum state itself. Here, Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that Burdick's publicly available Facebook page or the specific post was directed at a California audience. Unlike the national publication in Calder which had its largest circulation in California, Burdick's Facebook page had no demonstrated 'California focus.' The acts of alleged co-conspirators cannot be imputed to Burdick for jurisdictional purposes; his own contacts must be assessed, and they are insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the 'effects test' for personal jurisdiction in the context of social media and internet speech, particularly after the Supreme Court's decision in Walden v. Fiore. It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to sue out-of-state defendants for online defamation, requiring more than simply showing the defendant knew the plaintiff resided in the forum state and would feel the harm there. The decision creates a crucial distinction between conduct aimed at a plaintiff and conduct aimed at the forum state, demanding specific evidence of targeting the state's audience or market. This precedent provides substantial protection for individuals and small entities from being haled into court in any jurisdiction where a person they criticize online happens to reside.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Burdick v. Superior Court (2015)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"