Ratcliffe v. Pedersen51 Cal.App.3d 89, 123 Cal.Rptr. 793 (5th Dist. 1975) FACTS: Plaintiff Ratcliffe and others were residents of California. Pedersen was an importer of foreign-made motorcycles and domiciled in Idaho. In an L.A. Superior Court action, Plaintiffs claim they were promised a California distributor ship for imported motorcycles, alleging breach of that agreement and fraud. Pedersen appeared specially and moved to quash service of summons on the ground that he never was domiciled or resided in California and never transacted any business with Appellants. The Court granted the motion, plaintiffs appealed. DECISION: GARGANO, J. The Court of Appeal stated the governing jurisdictional principles. A California court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only within the perimeters of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Due process requires a nonresident defendant to have certain minimum contacts with the forum, such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" in order to subject a defendant to a judgment. It is enough to show that the cause of action is "sufficiently connected" with the forum related activity so it cannot be said that the cause of action is "entirely distinct" from the activity. The Court concluded that it was Pedersen's economic activity in California that put in motion the events that gave rise to Appellants' causes of action, and, therefore, a causal connection between the causes of action and Pedersen's economic activity. Pedersen: (a) used California's channels of commerce to sell more than 400 foreign made motorcycles to his benefit; (b) knew distributorships were being set up through out California to promote motorcycle sales;(c) should have foreseen Pedersen's name and reputation would be used to set up the distributorships, and (d) had a license to sell vehicles in California. All of the alleged events occurred in California, and would not have arisen except for Pedersen's activity in California. The motion is reversed. Critical Thinking Questions 1. What were the minimum activities the court found that Pedersen had with the State of California? 2. When is it fair to use long-arm jurisdiction? 3. Do you believe the concept of being hauled into court in a distant state is fair? Why or why not?