Question: 1. Why is it necessary for Pebble Beach to try to assert the long-arm statutes in this case? 2. The court analyzes only one part

1. Why is it necessary for Pebble Beach to try to assert the long-arm statutes in this case?

2. The court analyzes only one part of the three-part test for minimum contacts. Why?

3. How does the court apply precedent in deciding this case?


Pebble Beach Company (“Pebble Beach”), a golf course resort in California, appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of its complaint against Michael Caddy (“Caddy”), a small-business owner located in southern England. * * * Because Caddy did not expressly aim his conduct at California or the United States, we hold that the district court determined correctly that it lacked personal jurisdiction. * * * Thus, we affirm.


Step by Step Solution

3.42 Rating (177 Votes )

There are 3 Steps involved in it

1 Expert Approved Answer
Step: 1 Unlock

1 Because the defendant Michael Caddy is located in the United Kingdom 2 The minimum contacts test h... View full answer

blur-text-image
Question Has Been Solved by an Expert!

Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts

Step: 2 Unlock
Step: 3 Unlock

Document Format (1 attachment)

Word file Icon

219-L-B-L-I-L (20).docx

120 KBs Word File

Students Have Also Explored These Related Business Law Questions!