Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
2004 WL 1462444, 374 F3d 797 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a tort case, the defendant's intentional act must be 'expressly aimed' at the forum state, not merely directed at a plaintiff who resides there.
Facts:
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, a world-famous actor and resident of California, built a career where control over his image was vital to his compensation.
- Fred Martin Motor Company ('Fred Martin') is an automobile dealership incorporated and located exclusively in Ohio.
- Fred Martin has no offices, employees, or operations in California, and does not advertise there.
- In April 2002, Fred Martin ran a series of five full-page color advertisements in the Akron Beacon Journal, a local Ohio newspaper.
- The advertisements featured a small photograph of Schwarzenegger in his role as 'The Terminator' with a quote bubble reading, 'Arnold says: ‘Terminate EARLY at Fred Martin!’'
- Schwarzenegger never gave Fred Martin permission to use his image.
- The advertisements were never circulated outside of Ohio.
Procedural Posture:
- Schwarzenegger sued Fred Martin and its advertising agency in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, a California state trial court.
- The defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a federal trial court.
- Fred Martin filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court granted Fred Martin's motion to dismiss.
- Schwarzenegger (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 unauthorized use of a California resident's image in an advertisement published exclusively in the defendant's home state subject the defendant to specific personal jurisdiction in California?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, J.
No. A nonresident defendant's actions do not subject it to specific personal jurisdiction in the forum state unless its conduct was expressly aimed at that state. Fred Martin's contacts with California were insufficient to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction. The court rejected the claim of general jurisdiction because Fred Martin's business contacts with California, such as purchasing cars from California-based importers via intermediaries and using California-based service companies, were not 'continuous and systematic' enough to approximate physical presence. For specific jurisdiction, the court applied the three-part 'effects' test from Calder v. Jones. While Fred Martin committed an 'intentional act' (placing the ad) that caused foreseeable harm to Schwarzenegger in California, it failed the second prong of the test: 'express aiming.' Unlike in Calder, where the story concerned the 'California activities of a California resident,' Fred Martin’s advertisement was aimed at a local Ohio market to entice Ohioans to buy cars. The mere knowledge that Schwarzenegger resided in California and would feel the harm there was insufficient to establish that Fred Martin had expressly aimed its conduct at California.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'express aiming' prong of the Calder effects test for specific personal jurisdiction. The ruling establishes that foreseeability of harm to a plaintiff in the forum state is not enough; the defendant's conduct itself must be targeted at the forum state. This decision prevents the establishment of personal jurisdiction based solely on the plaintiff's residence, reinforcing the principle that the jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum. It protects out-of-state defendants from being haled into court in a distant forum with which they have no meaningful connection beyond the fact that the plaintiff lives there.
