Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Boyden, a professional skateboarder known as Casper and credited with originating the Casper flip in the 1970s, sued Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) and two co-defendants named in the opinion as Honda Motor America (HMA) and Innocean Worldwide Americas LLC (IWA). He alleged violations of his rights of publicity under the common law and Civil Code section 3344 after HMC named a small SUV the Casper and sold it in South Korea, allegedly using California-based digital companies and California imagery.
HMC moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction with eight declarations and 19 exhibits. Its declarants testified that HMC's Korea-based brand team chose the name Casper from hundreds of options, that the SUV was sold only in the domestic Korean market through a Korean-language digital showroom and app, and that HMC did not ask platforms to use California servers or target California consumers.
Boyden opposed with five declarations and 40 exhibits, including three marketing experts who opined that HMC likely knew of Boyden when naming the SUV, likely seeded influencer posts attributing the name to him, and more likely than not used California companies, servers, and infrastructure to market the vehicle. The trial court granted the motion to quash, finding that HMC's conduct was expressly aimed at Korea and that any California contacts were incidental, and Boyden timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment, and under the refined Calder effects test the defendant must both cause foreseeable forum harm and commit an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum through suit-related conduct creating a substantial connection with the state. The court rejected Boyden's three categories of California contacts—California ethos, California-based digital technology companies, and foreseeable harm to a California resident—and his cumulative argument that the contacts added up to sufficient aiming.
The court held that marketing themes evoking California culture cannot establish express aiming, that use of California-based digital marketing services is by itself too slender a reed for jurisdiction, and that Boyden's expert opinions were speculative. It also held four declarations—those of his marketing experts and his counsel—inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 for lacking a California place of execution or a recital that they were made under California law.
The court further held that foreseeable harm to a California resident, standing alone, was insufficient under Walden v. Fiore, which examines the defendant's own forum contacts. It affirmed the denial of additional jurisdictional discovery as within the trial court's discretion, citing overbreadth, delay, and disorder in Boyden's approach during the roughly eight and a half months available, and it expressly did not decide the statutory renewal question. The judgment was affirmed, with costs to HMC on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder effects test requires an intentional act expressly aimed at California through suit-related conduct creating a substantial connection with the state, not merely foreseeable harm to a California resident.
- A defendant's use of digital marketing services from California-based technology companies, without something more, is too slender a reed to support personal jurisdiction in California.
- Marketing themes or imagery evoking California culture cannot contribute to establishing the express-aiming requirement for specific jurisdiction.
- Declarations opposing a motion to quash must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5, including a California place of execution or a recital that they were made under California law, or they are inadmissible.
- Denial of additional jurisdictional discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a party's failure to manage the available discovery period effectively will not establish an abuse.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits of specific personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants whose products are marketed online through platforms headquartered in California. It confirms that ubiquitous internet tools, California-themed marketing, and knowledge of a California plaintiff are insufficient without defendant conduct creating a substantial connection with the forum, and it illustrates the 'something more' courts require beyond embedded third-party code.
The opinion also underscores strict compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 for declarations on jurisdictional motions—applied on the court's own initiative to exclude both expert and counsel declarations—and the practical need to manage jurisdictional discovery diligently within the time set by the motion schedule.