The client, aCalifornia resident looks for a ticket online for a trip to Argentina, and she wants the adventure dancing the Tango on the streets of Buenos Aires, Argentina.She also wants to travel to Cordoba, Rosario, Salta, and even the ski resort Bariloche, and can do it by train.Online, she sees Ferrocariles Argentinos, the Argentine railway who has Google ads that pop up anywhere in the world when someone enters "Argentine train trip", it then says, "Special one month rail pass for US residents only - $299". After seeing it, she buys a ticket online and tells her friend in Arizona to buy one as well, and her friend does buy one. The railway has nooffices in California, but they have an advertising agency in Miami that manages the website.

She will be able to fly to Buenos Aires, shop in la Calle Florida, and dance in the club VIRUTA and La Boca and then go on her train trip.She is excited about her trip and is looking forward to spending time skiing in Bariloche.After she arrives in Buenos Aires, she does indeed tango, having the time of her life.She gets a video of her instructor doing a tango with her.

She leaves Buenos Aires, and while waiting at the Mar del Plata train station, she is standing at the train station, and she watches two trains crash, and she unfortunately is hit by a piece of metal flying from one of the trains, which severely injures her leg.She is devastated, and now can't ski, or tango, and needs a cane to walk.

When she arrives back in the US, she files a lawsuit against the Argentine railway, claiming that they were negligent in the operation of the trains.The railway responds and claims that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of California courts.

(F) So, our Argentine traveler was hurt in a train wreck in Mar del Plata, and wants to sue in California. The Argentine railroad sold a ticket to her online using a Miami ticketing and ad agency. Other than that, the railroad owns no property, employs no people and has no other contacts with California.

(I) The primary issue is whether or not the Railroad would be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts.

(R) The existing Rules of Law - Courts require that a defendant have "minimum contacts" (doing business, subjecting themselves to state authority, etc.) and after Nicastro, even targeting the state with commercial activity is required. A casual or even internet sale is probably not enough.

(A) Based on the lack of those minimum contacts, and looking at Nicastro and other more recent precedents, in my opinion,

(C) a California court would not likely be able to constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the railroad.

Question: look only at jurisdiction. Why exactly would California courts not have jurisdiction? Then, what you think will happen.