I'm grading midterm examinations in my civil procedure class right now, and the essay portion of that exam entirely revolves around the "relatedness" requirement of specific personal jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's holding in Ford Motor Co. Which is precisely the dispositive issue in this interlocutory writ proceeding in the Court of Appeal.
So, needless to say, I was interested.
I'll not go into the particular merits here; ultimately, the Court of Appeal holds that, on this record, there's no personal jurisdiction over the Japanese manufacturer of a robot that injured someone in California.
I'll just say this:
This opinion shows, in my view, why it's so important to have someone who deeply knows this stuff during the initial law-and-motion proceedings, not just on appeal.
Because I'm fairly confident that if the plaintiffs had known at the time what they had to prove, they could have done so. Potentially easily.
Because I think that personal jurisdiction in fact exists here. Even though the appellate records amassed by the plaintiff on appeal may well not show it.
