SOC & SOC + Asahi Rule: 1.

The substantial connection, between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contact must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state 2. A defendants awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum state. a. Need Additional Conduct 1. (SOC) STREAM OF COMMERCE (Brennan) a. If Defendant places the product into the stream of commerce and REASONABLY ANTICIPATES that the product will get to the Forum State through the Stream of Commerce i. Fairly simple to find a Relevant Contact Through this test 2. (SOC+) STREAM OF COMMERCE PLUS (OConner) 3. A defendant who knows his product is being sold in the forum state (stream of commerce plus justice OConner) If D places product in the SOC must also do something else 4. Additional conduct (the +) a. Advertising in the forum State b. Designing the product for the market in the forum State i. Customizing for CA especially, ex. Meeting CA environmental standards for CA and therefore designed for CA 1. If they were manufacturing all their products to meet CA standards then this isnt as strong as if it was targeted at CA under non-mandatory conditions c. If you only have SOC without one that clearly gives you plus then you might not have enough to get PJ really look at whether the product is targeted directly at the forum state and to what extent and why d. Defendant needs to do more than just place its product in the stream of commerce i. D needs to place the product in the stream of Commerce PLUS have an Intent or Purpose to Serve Forum State Purposefully Avail/Solicit e. It is not enough to just put the product in the stream of commerce i. Intent or Purpose is Shown: 1. EX: Advertising in those other states, Customer Service providing a 1-800 number, etc. a. W/o this + then there is not a PA and no Relevant Contact = No PJ 1

Asahi P Cheng Shin D Asahi 1. Zurcher + wife the wife died 2. R17 says go to state law as to who has the COA for the deceased member of the claim 3. Asahi became a member of this claim through a cross claim dont cross an existing v. but create a new one 13(g) complaint of one co-party against another co-party

Indemnification Claim If I am responsible to you then you are responsible to me an impleader claim R14 B/c Asahi was not originally named and therefore not a party to the action so the court should have called it an impleader o However this case is in CA state court so it applies their terminology so they call R13 and R14 things a cross claim but if we were in federal court this would be a R14 impleader claim Note: 1. Zurcher and wife are no longer parties to this suit so the only thing that is left is the R14 impleader from Chen Shin to Asahi a 3rd party defendant 2. Chen Shin is the tire tube manufacture 3. Asahi is the air valve manufacture 4. PJ issue whether the court has PJ over Asahi Each Defendant needs to have their own PJ analysis on the exam even if they are 3rd party impleader Defendants Under the 14th amendment each has their right to due process and CA cannot deprive any defendant of life, liberty, or property without due process of law The State of CA can deprive Asahi of a property interest but it must comply with the due process clause

Conjunctive Test (all 4 must be satisfied) 1. ARO: does this action have anything to do with the forum state (ARO) a. The defendants valve injured the driver of the motorcycle and therefore the State has jurisdiction (P wants to look at the whole big picture of what happened) i. Want to qualify the case as a tort case b. D could argue that the 3rd party P (Cheng) is not a citizen of CA (D is going to narrowly construe the case to only the indemnification claim with a relationship that has nothing to do with CA) saying that they did not manufacture, sell, or market the valve in CA at all i. This COA is an indemnification action by one component manufacture against another component manufacture that has nothing to do with CA the transactions between them were in ii. Action is not about the motorcycle accident but the indemnification 2. L-ARM a. The LARM statute says if the next two steps allow it then CA will have jurisdiction (follows Const)

3. MC a. PA/UA (McGee/Hansen) i. More than the contact in McGee ii. Less than the contact in McGee 1. No contact cite about how Asahi never solicits customers in the Forum state a. Use Hansen language b. RF-H Reasonable Foreseeability that D will be Haled into Court (WWVW) i. More reasonably foreseeable than WWVW 1. Is RF b/c they knew their product was being sold in CA unlike in WWVW b/c they didnt know where the cars would go after they are sold ii. Less reasonably foreseeable than WWVW 1. D would say its not RF that they would be haled into court all the way from Japan and did not know that their product was being sold in CA say its like WWVW c. Intentional Tort (Calder) i. In this case there is not an intentional tort so Calder doesnt really apply to this case d. Stream of Commerce Plus i. Mere foreseeability is not enough must have some act by which the D purposefully avails itself ii. Knowing you product is being sold in the forum State is not enough 1. Need purposefully directed toward the forum State 4. FPSJ: Fair Play and Substantial Justice (has several Data points) (BK and Asahi) a. Asahi This case offends Fair Play and Substantial Justice (really know what facts constitute this situation) 1. The interest here is that D is foreign (Japan), (small s state) (foreign) 2. Has to travel a huge distance, 3. It is an impleader case or crossclaim case, and 4. The fact that CA hardly has an interest in the subject of the impleader ii. Burden on the Defendant 1. Foreign/Distance the Defendant has to travel and foreign here is significant b/c both foreign and distance a. Foreign seemed to be the more decisive factor over the actual distance but they must be taken in combination iii. The interests of the forum State 1. Why does CA care? a. P It would make a huge difference if Zurchers claim was still part of the litigation b/c then he would have a huge interest in being able to gain relief for his injuries and not have to go to Japanese court b. D why would CA care about one mfr to another that has nothing to do with CA iv. The Plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief 1. In this case the interests of the Plaintiff and the forum in CAs assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi are slight especially in this case that really has nothing to do with CA v. The interests of the several States, in addition to the forum State, in the efficient judicial resolution of the dispute and the advancement of substantive policies Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County Issue whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum State in the stream of commerce constitutes minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum State such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 3

Analysis 1. Part 2 a) held that there is no evidence that Asahi designed its product in anticipation of sales in California. On the basis of these facts, the exertion of personal jurisdiction over Asahi by the SCCA exceeds the limits of due process 2. I. A corporation must PURPOSEFULLY AVAIL itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State a. If the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owners or to others. 3. II. Fair play and substantial justice a. Burden on the defendant i. In this case is severe b. Interests of the forum State i. Significantly diminished c. The plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief d. Interests of the several States, in addition to the forum State, in the efficient judicial resolution of the dispute and the advancement of substantive policies i. Considering the international context, the heavy burden on the alien defendant, and the slight interests of the plaintiff and the forum State, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a CA court over Asahi in this instance would be unreasonable and unfair 4. Note from Justice Brennan a. This is one of those rare cases in which minimum requirements inherent in the concept of fair play and substantial justice defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even though the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities b. There were enough facts for CA SC to support its finding of minimum contacts; Asahi was aware of the distribution systems operation, and it knew that it would benefit economically form the sale in California of products incorporating its components 5. Note from Justice Stevens: Says that examination of minimum contacts is not necessary to the decision a. Minimum requirements inherent in the concept of fair play and substantial justice may defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities (Burger King) i. The fact that CAs exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would be unreasonable and unfair this finding alone requires reversal Holding: Because the facts of this case do not establish minimum contacts such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion