Bernard Picot v. Dean Weston

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that plaintiff’s 1 contacts cannot drive the jurisdictional inquiry
• “[A]n injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the defendant has formed a contact with the forum State.”
• “Picot’s injury . . . is not tethered to California in any 14 meaningful way. Rather, his injury is entirely personal to him and would follow him 15 wherever he might choose to live or travel.”
• “If personal 23 jurisdiction exists over one claim, but not others, the district court may exercise pendent personal 24 jurisdiction over any remaining claims that arise out of the same ‘common nucleus of operative 25 facts’ as the claim for which jurisdiction exists.”
• speaking with a person is an intentional act
• two trips, to forum state inadequate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).