Thiebaut v. Blue Cross of Indiana

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J. In the above-entitled action, cross-complainants Paul Thiebaut and Starr Thiebaut appeal from an order in favor of cross-defendants Blue Cross of Indiana and Blue Shield of Indiana, quashing service of summons on, and dismissing, their cross-complaint.

The issue is whether under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, providing—“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States”—the superior court had obtained jurisdiction over Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Indiana corporations.

The apposite law is stated by Hunt v. Erie Ins. Group (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1244, 1246-1247, as follows:

“International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), establishes that for personal jurisdiction to lie, ‘due process requires ... a defendant . . . [to] have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’ Minimum contacts may give rise to ‘general’ or ‘limited’ personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction [our italics] arises when a nonresident defendant’s activities in the forum are so substantial and continuous that due process does [1160]not require a connection between the cause of action pleaded and the nature of the defendant’s activities in the state. . . .

“The test for limited jurisdiction [our italics], however, does not sweep so broadly, nor does it focus on what the defendant has failed to do within a state. We have set forth the requirements of limited in personam jurisdiction as follows: (1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully [our italics] avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities. (3) Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”

The evidentiary showing of the parties in the superior court was by declarations under penalty of perjury.

We first consider the evidence as it bore upon the “general jurisdiction” of California’s courts.