Case: Pavlovich v.

Superior Court Procedural History: The defendant moved to quash service based on a lack of personal jurisdiction in California. The Court of Appeal found that California had jurisdiction, and the defendant appealed. Facts: Defendant posted DVD decryption code on his web site, enabling public to circumvent plaintiff's technology contained on the DVDs. Plaintiff, a California corporation, sues defendant in California state court. Defendant lives and works in Texas, and has no contacts with California (other than the cyber domino effect of his actions). The defendant moved to quash service based on a lack of personal jurisdiction in California. The Court of Appeal found that California had jurisdiction, and the defendant appealed. Issue: Does California have specific jurisdiction over Pavlovich based on the web page he posted? Rule: In order for a state to exercise specific jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, it must show that the defendant has minimum contacts related to the claim such that fair play is not offended. Holding/Judgment: The court reversed the appellate court’s decision, finding that California had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Reasoning: In INTERNET cases, the determination of personal jurisdiction adheres to a "sliding scale analysis: At one end of the spectrum ... if the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end ... a passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site."