Erica Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions

Oral argument

• Argued

  37 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that we have never held that the distinction between purposeful direction and availment is “a hard-and-fast rule”
• noting that “remote actions taken to service a 14 contract in the forum state seldom lead to purposeful availment by themselves”
• stating that “there’s no need to adhere to an iron-clad doctrinal dichotomy 28 to analyze specific jurisdiction” and “to the extent Cranfield argues that we should only review Appellants’ tort claims under the purposeful direction test, we disagree”
• explaining there is no “hard-and-fast rule” and the 16 first prong “may be satisfied by purposeful availment,” “by purposeful direction,” or “by some 17 combination thereof”
• typically the purposeful availment analysis applies in suits sounding in contract and the purposeful direction analysis in tort, although is not “a hard-and-fast rule”
• “[W]hen considering specific jurisdiction, courts should comprehensively evaluate the extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and those contacts’ relationship to the plaintiffs’ claims—which may mean looking at both purposeful availment and purposeful direction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC
  Ninth Circuit· 2023-09-12· cited 52×
• Brandon Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2025-04-21· cited 47×
• Brandon Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2023-11-28· cited 39×
• Supertech, Inc. v. My Choice Software, LLC
  Ninth Circuit· 2025-10-23
• Doe v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft
  Ninth Circuit· 2025-10-30

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• International Shoe Co. v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1945-12-03· cited 18,588×
• Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
  Supreme Court· 1985-05-20· cited 12,253×
• Hanson v. Denckla
  Supreme Court· 1958-10-13· cited 7,025×
• Daimler AG v. Bauman
  Supreme Court· 2014-01-14· cited 4,713×
• Walden v. Fiore
  Supreme Court· 2014-02-25· cited 3,814×
• Calder v. Jones
  Supreme Court· 1984-03-20· cited 3,198×
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
  Supreme Court· 2017-06-19· cited 2,355×
• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.
  Supreme Court· 2021-03-25· cited 1,735×
• Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 2004-06-30· cited 1,487×
• Boschetto v. Hansing
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-08-20· cited 712×
• Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'antisemitisme
  Ninth Circuit· 2006-01-12· cited 490×
• Bernard Picot v. Dean Weston
  Ninth Circuit· 2015-03-19· cited 460×
• 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7276, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,439 Elizabeth Ballard v. Michael E. Savage, and Royal Trust Bank (Austria)
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-09-15· cited 386×
• Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1998-03-31· cited 372×
• Rar, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation v. Turner Diesel, Limited
  Seventh Circuit· 1997-03-03· cited 330×
• Lake v. Lake
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-05-26· cited 330×
• Roth v. Garcia Marquez
  Ninth Circuit· 1991-08-08· cited 326×
• Frank Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc., and Clinic La Prairie, S.A.
  Ninth Circuit· 1988-08-23· cited 252×
• Harry L. Reynolds, Jr. v. International Amateur Athletic Federation, the Athletic Congress
  Sixth Circuit· 1994-07-07· cited 238×
• Mitchell B. Haisten, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Jean E. Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical Reimbursement Fund, Ltd.
  Ninth Circuit· 1986-03-17· cited 236×