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 Because the defendant Michael Caddy is located in the United Kingdom 2 The minimum contacts test h... View full answer
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
Document Format (1 attachment)
219-L-B-L-I-L (20).docx
120 KBs Word File
