Calder v.

Jones

Citation: 465 U.S. 783 (1984)

Relevant Facts:

Shirley Jones was an actress living and working in California, with her career centred in that
State. The National Enquirer, a publication with a national circulation of some 5 million at
the time, published an article that Jones claimed libelled her. She brought suit in California
State Court against the publisher, distributor, writer, and editor of the allegedly libellous article.
Neither the publisher nor distributor objected to jurisdiction, as the magazine had a circulation
of over 600,000 in California. However, Editor Calder- by special appearance- objected to
personal jurisdiction. Writer South also objected by special appearance.

Petitioner Calder was a resident of Florida, and claimed he had only been to California twice,
once for business and once for pleasure. He conducted his activities related to the article in
question from the State of Florida, including his refusal to print a retraction. Similarly,
Petitioner South was a resident of Florida who conducted his research and writing for the article
in question in that State. He also made several telephone calls to California related to his work
on the article. While South had made more numerous trips to California than Calder, both
business and pleasure, neither had any additional contacts with that State. In their special
appearances, Calder and South objected to personal jurisdiction based on both a traditional
minimum contacts analysis and First Amendment Claims. The Trial Court concluded that while
they had traditional minimum contacts to satisfy due process, the potential chilling effect on
speech by requiring authors to appear in distant forums threatened their First Amendment
rights. The California Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that the First Amendment had no
bearing on jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the decision of
the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Does writing or editing an article in one state with knowledge that it will be distributed in
another state subject the author and editor to suit in state court in the state of distribution?

Holding:

Yes, intentional conduct that takes place in one state but calculated to cause harm in another
state subjects a defendant to personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.

A state can exercise jurisdiction over a D based on the "effects test" - a state has power to
exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who causes effects in a state by an act done elsewhere
with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects.

Reasoning:

The alleged libellous story concerned the activities of a CA resident and hurt the career of an
entertainer who worked in CA. The article was drawn from CA sources, and the brunt of the
harm was suffered in CA. CA was the focal point of both the harm and the story.

The negligence was not untargeted; the actions were aimed at CA and at the P.
An individual injured in CA doesn't need to go to FL to sue people in FL who knowingly caused
harm in CA.

Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

First, Justice Rehnquist explained the traditional constitutional standard for personal
jurisdiction, requiring a defendant to have traditional minimum contacts with the forum state.

Furthermore, maintenance of the suit must not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. As the Court explained, minimum contacts analysis involves consideration
of the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the particular matter involved in the
underlying suit. As Justice Rehnquist explained, in this case California (the Forum State) was
the focal point of both the article and the harm suffered, as the story concerned a California
resident and was drawn from California sources, publication on which harmed the plaintiff and
her career- all in California. Applying the traditional effects test for traditional minimum
contacts, the Court concluded that personal jurisdiction in this case was proper.

Next, the Court addressed Petitioners claim that they had no control over publication or
distribution of the article, requesting to be treated the same as a manufacturing employee that
works on a product in one state that is subsequently shipped into another state causing injury.
The Court disagreed with the analogy, explaining that Petitioners had knowledge of where the
article would be published and specific knowledge regarding the injuries likely to result. While
the Court agreed that jurisdictional analysis must be undertaken separately for each defendant,
the Petitioners activities were such that they should have reasonably anticipated being hauled
into court in the forum state. Finally, the Court rejected the First Amendment claims,
explaining that Petitioners had adequate protections available during the substantive portion of
the proceedings, and it would be inappropriate to inject those concerns into a jurisdictional
analysis.

Dissent: None.

Conclusion:

Authors and editors that produce articles for publication may reasonably anticipate jurisdiction
in the states where their articles are published, and are subject to jurisdiction in those states for
the resulting harm. Jurisdiction is proper under the Due Process Clause, and the First
Amendment is not a defense to a jurisdictional analysis.

This case will have larger implications with cases involving the internet.

Effects test - must know that the tortuous action was purposefully aimed at a particular state

The Calder effects test will allow personal jurisdiction over a party whose

o Conduct was expressly aimed at the forum state,

o Knowing that the harmful effects would be felt primarily there
o And that the defendants would "reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there".