Of course she can. The Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's contrary decision below.
This is a pretty simple issue; indeed, your basic first-year law student would get this one right. I will say that Justice Burns' opinion could perhaps have been a bit clearer than it is. The fight here is not about minimum contacts (which everyone pretty much admits exists), but rather the "fairness" factors. Justice Burns correctly notes that these factors need to be "super" unfair (e.g., a "compelling" case) for there to not be personal jurisdiction here, and, yep, they're very much not. Hence the result, which is spot on.
But it bear mention that these are factors, which you weigh against each other pro and con. Today's Court of Appeal opinion instead reads like the various components are separate arguments or requirements or the like, which makes the resolution a bit more confusing than need be.
They're factors. Maybe, at most, one or two of 'em lean slightly against the exercise of personal jurisdiction by California. But not by a lot, and in any event, the others don't. Hence there's not a "compelling case" that jurisdiction here is unfair.
That's all one needs to say.
