Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Boyden, a California skateboarder known professionally as "Casper" and credited with originating the Casper flip trick, sued Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) and two affiliates after HMC named a new small SUV the "Casper" and marketed it exclusively in South Korea. Boyden alleged the defendants violated his rights of publicity under common law and Civil Code section 3344 by naming the vehicle after him without consent and marketing it through California-based digital services companies while incorporating California themes like palm trees and skateboarding culture.
HMC moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, with declarations from Korea-based executives stating the Casper SUV was sold exclusively in the domestic Korean market, the naming decision was made by a Korea-based brand strategy team, and HMC never targeted California consumers or directed any platform to use California servers. Boyden opposed with declarations from himself, his counsel, and three marketing experts who opined that HMC's data-driven marketing more likely than not required California servers and communications with California employees.
The trial court granted the motion to quash, concluding Boyden had not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that specific personal jurisdiction existed over HMC. The court found that even assuming HMC intentionally used Boyden's name knowing he would likely be harmed in California, Boyden had not demonstrated that HMC's conduct was expressly aimed at the state. Boyden timely appealed, also challenging the denial of additional jurisdictional discovery before the motion was heard.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, analyzing the three categories of California contacts Boyden cited under the Calder effects test as refined by Walden v. Fiore. First, the court rejected the argument that HMC's use of a "California ethos" could establish purposeful availment, reasoning that businesses routinely draw on themes from cultures beyond their own borders without thereby subjecting themselves to jurisdiction in those places. Second, the court held that a defendant's use of digital marketing services provided by California-based technology companies is, by itself, too slender a reed on which to premise jurisdiction, found the contrary opinions of Boyden's experts speculative, and ruled four declarations inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. Third, the court held that foreseeable harm to Boyden as a California resident, standing alone, was insufficient under Walden, which requires the defendant's own suit-related conduct to create a substantial connection with the forum state. Cumulatively, the evidence did not suffice to establish personal jurisdiction over HMC.
The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boyden the opportunity to complete additional jurisdictional discovery before ruling on the motion to quash. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court discerned elements of overbreadth, delay, and disorder in Boyden's approach, noted that he had approximately eight and a half months to conduct discovery, and concluded he had not met his burden of establishing that the rulings were arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
In an order modifying the opinion and denying rehearing, the court added a footnote clarifying that widespread dissemination of a plaintiff's name through marketing efforts in California does not constitute the "publication" that supported jurisdiction in Walden. The judgment was affirmed with costs awarded to HMC.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant's use of California-based digital technology platforms such as Meta and Google to market a product sold exclusively overseas is, by itself, too slender a reed to establish specific personal jurisdiction in California.
- Marketing that evokes a "California ethos" through imagery such as palm trees, beaches, and skateboarding culture does not constitute express aiming at California for purposes of the Calder effects test.
- Under Walden v. Fiore, a defendant's knowledge that a plaintiff resides in California and is likely to be harmed there, standing alone, is insufficient to support specific jurisdiction; the defendant's own suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum.
- Declarations submitted in opposition to a motion to quash that fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 are inadmissible and have no evidentiary value on review.
- A trial court's denial of additional jurisdictional discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appellant bears the heavy burden of showing the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the limits of specific personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants whose only connections to California are the incidental use of California-based internet platforms and marketing themes evocative of the state. It underscores that the express aiming requirement of the Calder effects test, as refined by Walden, demands suit-related conduct by the defendant that creates a substantial connection with California, not merely foreseeable harm to a California resident.
The opinion also serves as a practical reminder that declarations submitted in jurisdictional proceedings must strictly comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5, as noncompliant declarations will be deemed inadmissible. Additionally, the court's order modifying the opinion and denying rehearing clarified that marketing-based dissemination of a plaintiff's name is not "publication" under Walden.