59 F.3d 126 (9th Cir. 1995), 93-56256, Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical Ass'n

Docket Nº:93-56256.
Citation:59 F.3d 126
Party Name:Elaine G. CARUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOANALYTICAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:July 06, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 126

59 F.3d 126 (9th Cir. 1995)

Elaine G. CARUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOANALYTICAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-56256.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 6, 1995

Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1995.

Page 127

Robert S. Gerstein, Santa Monica, CA, and James Fizzolio, Fizzolio, Fizzolio & McLeod, Sherman Oaks, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

James E. Hornstein, Brian L. Edwards, Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before: BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, [*] District Judge.

BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Elaine Caruth filed a complaint against the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA), alleging that IPA's decision to deny her membership and training analyst status was based on age discrimination. On July 6, 1993, IPA removed the case to the United States District Court and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was granted by the district court. Caruth timely appeals. We have jurisdiction and reverse.

I.

As a court sitting in diversity, the district court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over IPA pursuant to California's long-arm statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Sec. 410.10. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.1990). Section 410.10 provides for personal jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." Id. Jurisdiction in this case is therefore constrained only by constitutional due process requirements. Those requirements are satisfied here.

"A court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant." Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir.1990). Specific jurisdiction, the type at issue here, is appropriate when the following requirements are met:

"(1) The nonresident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully 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 relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable."

Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1485 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1987)).

Since the district court resolved Appellee's motion to dismiss without an evidentiary

Page 128

hearing, relying only on the pleadings and affidavits, we only inquire into whether Caruth's pleadings and affidavits make a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP