Pavlovich v. Superior Court
127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Exercising specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on posting information on a passive website requires more than the defendant's knowledge that their conduct may harm industries centered in the forum state; due process requires evidence that the defendant expressly aimed or intentionally targeted their tortious conduct at the forum state.
Facts:
- DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVD CCA), a non-profit with its principal place of business in California, was formed to license the Content Scrambling System (CSS) technology used to protect copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs.
- Matthew Pavlovich, a resident of Texas and former student in Indiana, founded and led the LiVid video project.
- The LiVid project operated a passive website that only provided information and did not solicit or transact any business.
- As early as October 1999, the LiVid website posted the source code for a program named DeCSS, which allows users to circumvent CSS technology.
- At the time of the posting, Pavlovich knew that DeCSS was derived from CSS algorithms and that reverse engineering them was probably illegal.
- Pavlovich was aware that posting DeCSS could harm the motion picture and computer industries, which he knew were significantly centered in California.
- Pavlovich did not know that DVD CCA was the CSS licensing entity or that its principal place of business was in California until after DVD CCA filed its lawsuit.
- Pavlovich had no other personal or business contacts with California; he did not reside, work, own property, maintain a bank account, or solicit business in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- DVD CCA sued Matthew Pavlovich and others in California superior court (a trial court) for misappropriation of trade secrets, seeking injunctive relief.
- Pavlovich, the defendant, filed a motion to quash service of process, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
- The trial court denied Pavlovich's motion.
- Pavlovich, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal initially denied the petition summarily.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal, directing it to issue an order to show cause.
- The Court of Appeal then issued a published opinion denying the petition, finding jurisdiction was proper.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to decide the issue.
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 court's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, who posted misappropriated trade secrets on a passive website, comport with due process when the defendant knew his actions could harm industries centered in the forum state but had no other contacts with that state and did not expressly aim his conduct at it?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. The court's exercise of jurisdiction was improper. For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction under the 'effects test,' a defendant must have purposefully and voluntarily directed his activities toward the forum, which requires more than just knowledge that his conduct might cause harm there. Pavlovich's act of posting code on a passive website accessible worldwide was not an act expressly aimed at California. His generalized knowledge that his conduct could harm the motion picture and computer industries, which are centered in California, is too attenuated to establish purposeful availment. To hold otherwise would make foreseeability of harm the sole basis for jurisdiction, effectively subjecting any person whose online conduct might affect a California industry to suit in California, which would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Dissenting - Baxter, J.
Yes. The exercise of jurisdiction was proper. Pavlovich knew that the movie and computer industries he was targeting with the DeCSS code were either centered in California or had a substantial presence there. By intentionally posting the code to undermine the CSS encryption technology used by these industries, he expressly aimed his tortious conduct at California with the knowledge that the brunt of the harm would be felt there. It is irrelevant that he targeted entire industries rather than a single individual or that he used the Internet as his medium; his conduct forged sufficient minimum contacts with California that he should reasonably have anticipated being haled into court in the state.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the 'Calder' effects test to conduct on the Internet, particularly concerning passive websites. It establishes that for specific personal jurisdiction, mere foreseeability of harm to industries concentrated in a forum state is insufficient; there must be evidence of 'express aiming' or intentional targeting of the state itself. This ruling protects non-resident defendants from being haled into court in any jurisdiction where their online content might have an economic ripple effect, thereby reinforcing traditional due process limits in the digital age. The case sets a precedent that distinguishes between knowledge of industry-wide effects and conduct purposefully directed at the forum, raising the bar for plaintiffs suing out-of-state defendants for online activities.
Unlock the full brief for Pavlovich v. Superior Court