Burdick v. Superior Court (Sanderson) (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8 is an important California Court of Appeal decision dealing with personal jurisdiction in internet-based defamation cases. The case addresses whether an out-of-state defendant can be subjected to personal jurisdiction in California solely because allegedly defamatory content posted online is accessible to California residents.
The ruling clarifies that accessibility and resulting harm in California are not enough on their own. Instead, there must be evidence that the defendant intentionally targeted the forum state. Burdick v. Superior Court draws heavily from the principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Walden v. Fiore and reinforces limits on the use of the “effects test” in cases involving online speech.
Factual Background of Burdick v. Superior Court
The dispute arose in the context of online commentary and competing business interests. The plaintiffs ran a skincare company and published blog posts criticizing a rival skincare product and the company that sold it. That competing company was headquartered in Texas but sold its products nationwide, including substantial business in California.
Douglas Burdick, who provided consulting services to the competing company, responded to the plaintiffs’ blog posts by making statements on his personal Facebook page. His post challenged the accuracy of the blog posts and questioned the credibility of the blog’s author. The Facebook post was allegedly defamatory, according to the plaintiffs.
Burdick published the Facebook post while residing in Illinois. There was no indication in the provided materials that the post was specifically directed at California readers, other than the fact that the plaintiffs themselves were California residents and that the content was publicly accessible.
Procedural History of Burdick v. Superior Court
After the Facebook post was published, the plaintiffs filed a defamation lawsuit against Burdick in California. Because Burdick was an out-of-state defendant, the central issue quickly became whether California courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
Burdick filed a motion to quash service of summons, arguing that exercising personal jurisdiction over him in California would violate his Due Process rights. He contended that he lacked sufficient contacts with California and that his Facebook post was not expressly aimed at the state.
The trial court denied Burdick’s motion to quash. Burdick then filed a writ petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied at that stage.
Burdick subsequently retained Horvitz & Levy LLP to seek review before the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
After further briefing, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion granting Burdick’s writ petition in part. This opinion forms the basis of Burdick v. Superior Court and addresses the jurisdictional standards applicable to online defamation claims involving nonresident defendants.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue in Burdick v. Superior Court was whether California courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an Illinois resident based on allegedly defamatory statements posted on a personal Facebook page, when the plaintiffs were California residents and the content was accessible in California.
The case specifically examined whether the plaintiffs had presented sufficient facts to show that Burdick expressly aimed his conduct at California, as required under modern personal jurisdiction standards.
Jurisdictional Analysis
Burdick argued that personal jurisdiction was improper because he did not purposefully direct his conduct toward California. He lived in Illinois, published the Facebook post in Illinois, and did not have personal contacts with California related to the alleged defamation.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, relied on the fact that they were California residents and that the alleged harm from the Facebook post was felt in California. They argued that Burdick should reasonably anticipate being sued in California because the post concerned California-based individuals.
The Court of Appeal analyzed these arguments in light of Walden v. Fiore, a United States Supreme Court decision emphasizing that personal jurisdiction must be based on the defendant’s own contacts with the forum state, not merely on the plaintiff’s residence or where the effects of the conduct are felt.
In applying this framework, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to present evidence showing that Burdick intentionally targeted California itself. The mere fact that the Facebook post was publicly accessible and could be viewed by California residents was not enough.
Burdick v. Superior Court Judgment
In Burdick v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs had not established sufficient facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Burdick in California.
The court found no evidence that Burdick expressly aimed his Facebook post at California or that he engaged in conduct deliberately directed toward the state. The accessibility of the post in California and the plaintiffs’ residency were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
As a result, the Court of Appeal granted Burdick’s writ petition in part and concluded that the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash service without first requiring an adequate jurisdictional showing.
Direction to the Trial Court in Burdick v. Superior Court
Although the Court of Appeal concluded that personal jurisdiction had not been established, it did not dismiss the case outright. Instead, the court directed the trial court to vacate its earlier order denying Burdick’s motion to quash service.
The trial court was also instructed to rule, in the first instance, on the plaintiffs’ request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. This meant that the plaintiffs were given an opportunity to seek discovery limited to the jurisdictional issue, to determine whether evidence existed showing that Burdick specifically targeted California.
This procedural outcome highlights that Burdick v. Superior Court did not foreclose jurisdiction entirely but required a more rigorous factual showing consistent with due process principles.
Conclusion
In summary, Burdick v. Superior Court clarifies the limits of personal jurisdiction in defamation cases arising from online speech. The Court of Appeal emphasized that due process requires evidence of intentional targeting of the forum state, not merely foreseeable effects within it. The decision ensures that jurisdictional analysis remains defendant-focused and grounded in constitutional principles, particularly in cases involving internet communications that are accessible nationwide.