You are on page 1of 5

Thank you, your honors, and may it please the court. This is a case about precision.

The position of the appellee is that the decisions below should be affirmed. The reasons are: first, that Dr. Gordons communications into California satisfy the articulated standards of the Ninth Cir. for specific jurisdiction; and second, that Dr. Gordons claim of justification is fatally defective. What the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit has asked in specific jurisdiction cases is whether the defendants intentional contacts with the forum triggered the underlying cause of action, and whether requiring the defendant to litigate in the forum is reasonable. Under Boschetto v. Hansing, the exercise of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo (least deferential standard). Here, specific jurisdiction is proper because Gordon directed communications into California under Calder v. Jones, the defendants intentional contacts must be expressly aimed at the forum, causing harm she knew would be suffered in the forum the 9th Cir. has modified the third requirementknowledge of forum harm--under Yahoo v. LICRA, courts must examine all contacts with the forum state regardless of whether they involve wrongful conduct by the defendant; to hold otherwise would put the cart before the horse; if an allegation in tort is the basis for jurisdiction, a finding that the act was not wrongful would deprive the court of jurisdiction MG purchased archived news articles from the Sacramento BusyBee, called TN, wrote and mailed a letter to RPD, and called SSJ under Brayton Purcell v. Recordon & Recordon, foreseeability of harm in the forum trigger the foreseeability of being haled into court; harm was foreseeable here as MG called SSJ and advised her to seek legal counsel (R. at 36) under Bancroft & Masters v. Augusta Natl, allegations of tortious conduct targeted at a known forum resident supports jurisdiction under Yahoo and Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, though TN was not physically in CA at the time of MGs call, this act is a CA contact because of the ripple effect principle these cases recognize; that because MG knew the effect from this contact would arise in CA, it supports personal jurisdiction MG attacked SSJ by attempting to have TN write an article about her emotional condition for the Sacramento BusyBee; (R. at 45) under Time, Inc. v. Hill, mental distress can only be felt where the resident lives whether the contacts were wrongful is an issue for the merits, but they nevertheless support jurisdiction to determine their wrongfulness Gordon triggered the underlying cause of action through the California locus of her conduct causation not at issue here; SSJ sues because of MGs conduct although TN not in CA, he is from CA, the parent company of his current employer are based in CA, and the servers supporting his website are based in CA under Wright v. Yackley, courts are circumspect in asserting jurisdiction over nonresident physicians providing follow-up medical care; distinguishable from the facts of this case as MG disclosed confidential information to TN and solicited him write an article for the Sacramento BusyBee, going beyond the realm of follow-up medical services Gordon failed to adduce any evidence of unreasonableness under Burger King v. Rudzewicz, burden shifts to MG to show that jurisdiction would be unreasonable MGs purposeful interjection weighs strongly in favor of jurisdiction; her numerous communications into the forum established a substantial connection with CA andif, as she claims, she was discharging her duty to warn, MG should be required to litigate a claim arising from that duty in CA under Panavision, the burden of traveling to the forum to litigate has been alleviated by advances in communications technology MG already has counsel; the obverse would be to send SSJ and her lawyers to AUS

To my second point, the court below correctly framed the issue as whether Dr. Gordon could possibly justify her breach of confidentiality under to Austrian law and subsequently determined that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a dangerous patient exception exists on the basis of the evidence in this record. Under Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., choice of law is reviewed de novo. Under Cal. Sup. Ct. in Reich v. Purcell, CA uses the Comparative Impairment test Laws differ (see R. at 85) Californias interest here is weak, but pervasive, while Austrias interest is compelling Austrian interests swallow Californias under 9th Cir. in McGhee v. Arabian Oil Co., or the Cal. Sup. Ct. in Offshore Rental v. Continental Oil., and Hurtado v. Superior Court, AUS has an interest in having its law applied to torts occurring within its borders if, on the basis of the merits of the claim, a court found justification, then MG would be vindicated under AUS law and CA citizens will have remained safe BUT AUS is the vanguard in a movement towards a patient confidentiality ideal; failure to apply its law to conduct within its borders is a direct assault on its policy prerogatives SSJ had an expectation of complete confidentiality pursuant to AUS law; see R. at 31; akin to negligent misrepresentation of SSJ to open up; she may not have disclosed her dreams about making threats if she had no expectation of complete confidentiality under Tarasoff, if a patient was dangerous at the time of a dangerous-patient disclosure, but at a later time is stable and harmless, the protection rationale that animates the exception to confidentiality under CA law no longer applies; thus AUS law governs; no evidence that she is still a danger; reasonable to infer that nothing has happened over the past AND as a matter of policy, supported by RS Conflict of Laws 152, site of the injury is not the controlling criterion--otherwise, persons who cause injury in a state could escape liability imposed by the local law of that state Under AUS law, Gordons justification theory is defective because she failed to adduce evidence of an imminent threat of a criminal act under People v. Aris and Blacks law dict., imminent means with immediacy the lack of immediacy and criminality in the evidence is fatal to Gordons justification theory despite hundreds of hours of recorded therapeutic sessions, the only evidence MG introduced to demonstrate that her former patient posed an imminent threat of grave harm is one exchange, couched in a dream that took place nearly 5 years ago shoot first and ask questions later was not a threatit was a plea for help, the very making of which afforded MG the opportunity to work with her to resolve her problem; the type of problem that would be impossible to resolve if AUS patients of psychotherapy were unable to speak freely for fear of having their secrets exposed Gordons justification theory is nevertheless defective under CA law as she failed to adduce evidence of the dangerous patient exception under Tarasoff and 43.92, MG needs to produce evidence of a serious threat of harm against a reasonably identifiable victim under Calderon v. Glick, serious risks must be expressed as an intent to harm; the record only refers to self-defense under 43.92, MG must have communicated the threats discreetly; she allowed a reporter complete access to therapy sessions

under Thompson v. County of Alameda, the duty to warn arises from the existence of a specific identifiable victim; there is not one here, as appellant concedes; appellant relies on dicta from Barry v. Turek, in which nurses on one floor of a hospital could be found to be specific identifiable victims

California Evidence Code 1024 is misplaced here, but even this relaxed standard is left unsatisfied under U.S. v. Chase, testimonial privilege is distinguished from evidentiary privilege 1024 allows psychotherapists to testify to threats made in the course of therapy, not to disclose threats to police; that is already governed by Civ. 43.92

Bancroft & Masters Targeting a forum resident satisfies intentional aiming. GA df sent letter to CA pl Burger King Burden is on the defendant to show that jurisdiction is unreasonable. MI df entered into 20 yr K with FL pl Brainerd Intentional communications with a forum 3P regarding the pl sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. CAN df intentionally communicated with an employer in the forum regarding the AZ pl Brayton Purcell Foreseeable-harm element is satisfied when the dfs acts has foreseeable effects in the forum. S. Cal. law firm copied website of N. Cal law firm, requiring jurisdiction in N. Cal Calder Intentional conduct calculated to cause injury in the forum permits the forum to exercise jurisdiction. Two FL dfs faced jurisdiction in CA because of alleged libel against a CA pl Intl Shoe Due process requires minimum contacts with a forum so that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended. WA exercised jurisdiction over nonresident shoe company Panavision Establishing three-part test for spec. jurisdiction in 9th Cir. IL df subject to CA jur. for cybersquatting on CA pl Schwarzenegger Forum effect required for express aiming. 9th Cir. refused to find express aiming element without effects in forum Yahoo! Purposeful direction does not require wrongful acts to establish personal jurisdiction; wrongfulness is a merits inquiry, not the exercise of jurisdiction. French df obtained court order against and sent letters to a CA pl Bernhard CA law applies to determine liability of NV tavern owners who actively solicited business in CA

NV tavern owner liable for injuries caused by drunk driver who became intoxicated in NV and killed CA resident in a car wreck in part because NV did not permit recovery from tavern owners who furnish alcohol Hurtado foreign jurisdiction laws are primarily local and thus ordinarily not applicable to extraterritorial torts McGhee foreign jurisdiction had an interest in conduct that occurred within its borders Offshore the goal of the comparative impairment analysis is the maximum attainment of underlying purpose by all governmental entities Kearney foreign jurisdiction had compelling interest in ensuring that those who acted in the forum with reasonable expectation that forum law applied to their conduct were not unexpectedly and unforeseeably subjected to liability Calderon A serious risk must be expressed as an intent to harm. Deranged patient never expressed an intent to harm before going on shooting spree and responded negatively to related questions City of Alhambra Disclosure of psychiatric treatment is prohibited by privilege. Victims of alleged police misconduct sued a municipality; sought admissions of evidence of psychiatric treatment, which the court held privileged Ewing A serious threat must be a threat to take anothers life. Parents of a victim sued therapist for failure to warn of threat to their sons life, communicated from patients father In re Kevin F. 1024 provides a limited exception to warn where patient is a menace to himself or others and the patient refuses to permit the disclosure necessary to prevent the threatened danger. kevins fascination with fire led to a youth commitment based on arson resulting in GBI; statements to psychotherapists not privileged because underlying policy finds that members of the institution where kevin was being placed could be at risk Mavroudis

1024 provides an exception to privilege where the psychotherapist has a duty enunciated in Tarasoff Son attacked parents with hammer; parents alleged therapist had a duty to warn of his dangerous behavior Tarasoff Requiring psychotherapists to warn reasonably identifiable victims when patients evince an intent to harm a reasonably identifiable victim. Thompson v. City of Alameda Duty to warn depends upon and arises from the existence of a prior threat to a specific identifiable victim. Juvenile offender killed a 5 year-old immediately after being released; community was not warned about his release despite his threats to kill a child in the neighborhood.