Harris Rutsky & Co. Insurance Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Limited

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that purposeful availment includes the distinct concepts of 9 purposeful direction and purposeful availment
• holding that a district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for 10 jurisdictional discovery regarding corporate alter ego liability
• holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to show personal jurisdiction of 7 each defendant
• holding that “100% control through stock ownership” and “shar[ing] the same offices … and some of the same staff” did not make one company the alter ego of the other
• observing that litigating in Califor- nia posed only a limited burden to a London-based company, where its employees traveled there regularly for business
• holding facts establishing that parent wholly owned 5 subsidiary, parent and subsidiary shared same officers and directors, co-employed staff, and shared 6 physical office did not satisfy unity-of-interests requirement of alter ego test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).