Page 1
California Has Specific Jurisdiction Over Blogger Who Resides in Canada—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California has specific jurisdiction over a Canadian resident who posted messages on a website based in California which had a California audience, Div. Five of the First District Court of Appeal has held.
Alameda Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman wrote the unpublished opinion filed Monday. It reversed an order by the Contra Costa Superior Court quashing the service of a summons and complaint on Canadian Wenbin Yang.
Yang had posted messages on both the websites of Dongxiao Yue, a Californian, and Muye Liu, also a California resident. Yue sued Yang, alleging that after he removed Yang’s “sexually explicit, violent and insulting” posts from his website, Zhen Zhu Bay, the defendant retaliated by posting defamatory allegations against him on Liu’s rival website, Yeyeclub.com.
Seligman’s Opinion
Seligman said the first two requisites for specific jurisdiction—that the defendant availed himself of the forum’s benefits and directed conduct to the forum were met.
He wrote:
“Here, plaintiffs evidence—his verified complaint and his uncontradicted declaration—established Yang purposefully availed himself of forum benefits. The evidence showed Yang targeted his conduct at California: he communicated directly with plaintiff and posted on Yeyeclub, a website owned and operated by a California resident that had a California audience. Plaintiff also offered competent evidence that Yang’s posts had a California focus: Yang threatened to ‘bully’ plaintiff in California and communicated his plan to travel to San Francisco. Yang also announced that he had ‘arrived in California’ and urged his ‘collaborators’ to join him.
“Additionally, plaintiff provided evidence that Yang’s posts were directed to, and received by, a California audience: plaintiff and other California residents ‘read Yang’s defamatory statements’ on Yeyeclub. Finally, plaintiff offered evidence that Yang posted on Yeyeclub with the intent to cause harm in California, where Yang knew plaintiff lived. Together, this evidence demonstrated Yang’s ‘suit-related conduct created a substantial connection between Yang and California.’ ”
Yang’s Burden
Yang was left with the burden of showing that trial of the action here would be unfair or unreasonable. Seligman wrote that “[t]o be sure, there is some burden associated with requiring Yang, a Canadian resident, to litigate this case in California” but that there was no evidence this would create a severe hardship. He added:
“Other factors weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction. For example, evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims will likely be found in California, and Yang has not identified any witnesses or evidence located elsewhere….California also ‘has a manifest interest in providing a local forum for its residents to redress injuries inflicted by out-of-state defendants.’…Finally, in targeting California with his conduct, Yang could fairly expect to have been held ‘answerable on a claim related to those activities.’ ”
The case is Yue v. Yang, A159145.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company