First Advantage Background Services Corp. v. Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, et al.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant unless the conduct giving rise to the cause of action occurred in the forum state and caused harm within that state. Here, the courts of California have exercised specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a putative nationwide class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even though none of the alleged conduct occurred in California and the plaintiff alleges no harm there (or anywhere else). Given California’s rule that defendants who litigate on the merits waive personaljurisdiction arguments, FCRA defendants are likely to choose settlement rather than seek relief in this Court.

1. May a state court exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant facing a federal statutory claim brought as a putative nationwide class action when the claim arises from alleged conduct outside the forum state that did not harm the plaintiff in the forum (or anywhere else)?

2. If not, may the state court presume that the defendant’s alleged non-forum activities harmed the plaintiff in the forum state—even if the plaintiff makes no such allegations and offers no proof of such harm—and then place the burden on the defendant to show otherwise? (i)