[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
We'll wait to get everyone situated.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
Are we ready?

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
Anthony Dane, appearing for Appellant Liu.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
And just so you know, the

[00:00:34] Speaker 00:
Title Lou is the last name, so I'm not using his first name.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
It's an insult.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
I'm sure I massacred the pronunciations here.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
No problem.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Your Honors, after doing an exhaustive research on pretty much every case that addressed this issue from Burnham

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
to even the follow-up case in the Supreme Court of Mallory versus New York, to every federal appellate case, district court case, there is only one result with respect to what's been known as tag jurisdiction,

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
sometimes pejoratively referred to as slap service jurisdiction or transitory jurisdiction.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
And that is that personal service is required to confer jurisdiction on the court for a non-resident.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Non-resident or a non-citizen?

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
Can draw that even farther.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
I think it's even stronger for a non-citizen But including a non-resident Didn't the district court find that mr. Liu had been residing at that house for two years?

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
No, what this district court found is he didn't deny In a declaration he didn't deny that he was residing at the house and by the way residing Is a very vague and loose term doesn't mean you're a resident

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
But there is a distinction.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
The corollary or the flip side of the coin can't be that simply because you didn't deny being a resident, that means you are a resident.

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
And in fact, it was accepted by the district court that he was a non-resident.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
It was argued that way.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
Again, a non-resident or a non-citizen?

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
Where does the district court say he was not residing at that house?

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
The district court adopted what the respondent and, in that case, complainant's argument was, is they were residing or living at this Santa Fe house, but their primary residence was in China.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
There's definitely no argument that he's a non-citizen.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
That's absolute.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
Well, and apparently the other side isn't saying, they're saying he was domiciled in China.

[00:03:25] Speaker 04:
But the problem that I want to discuss with you that I see in here is while I might agree with you that this goes further than Burnham,

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
But the record establishes that your client received, it appears, actual notice of this action.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
For practical purposes, what difference does it make whether service was hand-delivered or was instead completed through mail, email, and delivery to an individual who self-identified as a co-tenant?

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
Because we're, you know, obviously when we talk about calling people into court,

[00:04:11] Speaker 04:
We do care about due process.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
We want to make sure that people aren't, you know, that there aren't defaults against them because let's just say this had been at a motel, all right, and they gave the substitute service to the person at the desk.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
But here, there was evidence he'd been living there for, what, two years, that his wife owned the place, that, you know, there's a lot of things that,

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
Certainly make it look like your client knew exactly he knew the court proceedings were going on No, and here's exactly what I'm not feeling sorry for him that way.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
I'm not feeling like he didn't He I guess that he didn't know about it now And that's the the critical point that summers address because you'd be in this hopsin Well, I'm not even sure if it's a hopsin's choice or whip whip saw it

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
At any point when a defendant or a respondent challenges jurisdiction, you can't argue that they must have received notice because they're bringing an attorney into court to challenge jurisdiction.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
So you're in this position of... It's just that sometimes if the defendant's not within the territory of the sovereign, whose courts he's been held into, notice isn't enough.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
But here, Mr. Liu was in the territory of

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
the Southern District of California, California, and more importantly, the United States.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
So this is where the facts are important in this case.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
His wife was sued as well.

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
She wasn't part of this arbitration proceeding and that's why she was ultimately dismissed.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
His wife was sued as well and she did receive notice.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence as to how Mr. Liu ultimately got that notice, but his wife was served

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
And I mean, we were retained to represent his wife.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
Ultimately, there was evidence brought by the process server that he was served through this other means.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
So we bring a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
We have to make sure we don't conflate two things.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
When we're talking about minimum contacts, it doesn't matter about physical presence.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
because you're deemed to have the minimum contacts in the... That's the question.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
Are you making an insufficient service of process argument or just a due process argument?

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
Just a due process argument?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
It's a due process argument.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
It's a lack of personal jurisdiction, but here's the key.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
I'd like to... You've had a lot of opportunity to speak.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
Let me just ask you a couple of questions.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
So in Burnham, the plurality opinion says, among the most firmly established principles of personal jurisdiction in American tradition is that the courts of a state have jurisdiction over non-residents

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
who are physically present in the state.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
About the other Justice Brennan's concurrence, I agree with Justice Scalia that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment generally permits the state court to exercise jurisdiction over defendant if he has served with process while voluntarily present in the forum state.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
And there's so many nicer cases, Barasa, Water Wheel Camp, so many that talk about if a nonresident is voluntarily present in the state, it does not offend

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Fair play and notions of justice to exercise personal jurisdiction over that person you're not reading.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
I actually think the due process part of your argument is is is Weak compared to the body of case law that we have and and respect well I hate to use respectfully because I've heard so many times that means Exactly so just directly your honor you're not reading far enough

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
What the court is saying in that case is the physical presence can be sufficient to hail you into court, but you're not looking far enough in both the lead opinion by Justice Scalia and in the opinion by Justice Stewart.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
And I'll go through them.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
This is what they say.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
Burnham clearly endorses the validity of jurisdiction via personal service.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
That was a follow-up.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
And that's also from the Moore's federal practice, but Justice Scalia specifically used the term later on, personal service.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
So the point is, yeah, physical presence can be enough to hail you into court if you're personally served, because that's the key that gets you the notice, the actual notice.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
What's the purpose of that requirement?

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
It's ensuring the defendant

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
has actual notice that they've been sued and hailed into that forum.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
As Justice Stevens said, indisputable, indisputable that he has personal, actual notice.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
that he's being hailed in.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
Isn't that weird?

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
It does seem indiscriminable that he knows.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
No, at some later point, every defendant will know because otherwise you can't challenge jurisdiction.

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
You can always challenge personal jurisdiction in a collateral attack.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
When a final judgment is sought to be enforced in another forum, the judgment debtor in that forum can challenge personal jurisdiction and say, I did not have actual notice in the first proceeding.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
You can but that's not the requirement that you wait and tell that there there's an entry of a judgment or you wait until There's an entry of an order, and then you challenge it there are multiple cases I mean I went through them any time a defendant attacks personal jurisdiction He will have had actual notice of the suit, and I'm saying that's not true Right because you can attack personal jurisdiction collaterally

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
But even collaterally, you have to know that there's a suit.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
You have to know at some point you've been sued because you received that there's a suit and there's a judgment.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
Collateral attack doesn't mean at some point you aren't aware that you had been sued.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
So this is what Burnham requires.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
The Supreme Court held a due process clause does not prohibit the California courts from exercising jurisdiction over petitioner based on the fact of in-state service of process.

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
They say in-state service of process.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
They don't say personal, has to be personal service.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
I'm going to disagree with you there that the Supreme Court said only personal service suffices for due process.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
Is that your position that only?

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
Personal service suffices for due process for that jurisdiction?

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
100% under Burnham, because later, that's why I'm saying you're not reading later, where in justifying what you just said, Scalia said historically personal service.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
Justice Stevens said personal service.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
A plurality decision, that's all they agreed on is personal service.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
And listen to what Justice Gorsuch said in Mallory versus Norfolk

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
in 2023, traditional tag rule holding that individuals physically served in the state are subject to suit there.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
He didn't say physically present.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
And when I went through all of the cases, if you look at the terror case, that judge said it directly, tag jurisdiction requires actual personal service, not could have been, not would have been, actual personal service.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
Every single

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
Appellate court case says personal service is required.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Think about it.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Just do the thought experiment on why this is entangled.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
When you have minimum contacts, the key isn't the personal service.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
The key is the contacts into the state.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
When a person steps into the state having no connection with what the lawsuit was for which you're seeking to hold them liable,

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
The only tie to the personal jurisdiction is that personal service.

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
And there can be no denial that in every case it follows that address that they say that the only tie is the person's physical presence in the state.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
That's what creates personal jurisdiction.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
The physical presence because in this case, there's no question this is a Chinese arbitration has nothing to do with activity in California.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
And the fact that they brought the suit against the wife as well is because she has property here, and they're moving to collect on that property.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
Well, and it seems to be that if you looked at it on the outside, and I'm sure they're going to say otherwise, because it went to China, to Singapore, and now they know he's living here for two years in a house that the wife owns, and he hasn't paid off his, I don't know, billion yen, or I don't know how much it's several million dollar judgment, it sounds like.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
I don't know exactly how the numbers equate.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
that he's just trying to hide out here and doesn't, but here there's property where they can actually get their judgment.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
His wife's property, she was dismissed from the case by the way because she wasn't part of this and trying to attach her property, the court wouldn't go that far.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
Let me just find out, you're running out of time, I'm assuming you want a little bit of rebuttal time.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
I do.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
Could I just ask, so are you, you're not making any sufficiency of process?

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
claims here, correct?

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Because we didn't file a 12b5 motion.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
You didn't file a 12b5 motion, correct?

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
Yeah, that's right.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Is your only argument due process?

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
I'm just trying to get a sense of the scope of your argument.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
You're right, because they're entangled.

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
Because under tagged jurisdiction, the service is what's critical.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And that was raised by the appellant in their opposition.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
That's why we

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
Address the personal raised a 12v5 Motion correct, but the court addressed it so we don't have to address the federal arbitration act We don't have to address federal rules of seal or procedure most of your arguments Seem to be focused on sufficiency of process Sufficiency of process as being the scenic one on for tag jurisdiction.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, you're right

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Yes, we can talk for that rebuttal.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
Okay, okay, so I'll give you two minutes for rebuttal Good morning.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
Good morning Good morning, your honors may please the court Lina Streisand on behalf of the Petitioner I want to keep your voice up a little

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
Yes, Lena Streisand on behalf of the petitioner and appellee Shenzhen Zhewei Jin Investment Center, who I will just refer to as CISIC.

[00:14:58] Speaker 04:
So you might want to jump to just because we've sort of framed this.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
And I know you were sitting over there listening.

[00:15:04] Speaker 04:
I saw that.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
Burnham deals only with personal service and not other methods of substitute service like those at issue in this case.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
Are you aware of any case law that holds that substitute service is sufficient to establish transient personal jurisdiction?

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, while there is not a specific case, we actually believe that's not the question here.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
As Your Honor noted during Mr. Dane's argument, Mr. Liu was present in the forum and has been since 2022.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
That's what the district court found.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
The district court specifically found that he is not an out-of-state defendant.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
That's on ER 23.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
And for that reason, transient jurisdiction is not necessary here.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
Burnham stands for the principle that physical presence in the jurisdiction is sufficient alone for personal jurisdiction.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
But you didn't argue below that he was domiciled here and that the district court could find general jurisdiction.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
And it seems like you're making that argument now.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, we did not argue below for general jurisdiction, but we did state that he is present in the forum, and the district court found that he has been physically present in the forum since 2022.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
Mr. Dane has not presented anything in his papers or today Stating that that's a clue, you know any evidence that would overcome The evidence in the record that the district court state cited in its brief in its opinion Well, I'm understanding him are you you heard how he reads Burnham and he's saying in Burnham under

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
the tagged jurisdiction that it must be personal service.

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
How are you reading Burnham?

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
So Burnham specifically states that jurisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
While the defendant in Burnham was personally served, the court never actually reaches the question as to whether there is personal jurisdiction or based on the fact that he was personally served or served otherwise.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
That's just not a question here.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Regardless, there's the facts of Burnham might be focused on personal service, but there's certainly a holding in there that in-state service is sufficient so long as the defendant is present physically present in the state.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
So then we just need to clarify what in-state service means.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
And I think

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
Rule four sets forth what in-state service means.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
It doesn't necessarily mean that there was personal service, where you have a- Well, I'm curious why you say rule four.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
Would you disagree that the test stems from the due process clause and not from the federal rules of civil procedure?

[00:18:51] Speaker 02:
I don't disagree.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
I think that-

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
There is, when you have a non-resident defendant, there's a different analysis.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
That's not the analysis here.

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
The analysis here... Federal rules of civil procedure were enacted in the 1900s, but the personal jurisdiction existed before that, right?

[00:19:11] Speaker 01:
So the test for whether...

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
The service while you're in the territory is sufficient.

[00:19:18] Speaker 01:
It's got to be a constitutional test, right?

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
And as Justice Scalia said in Burnham, that test is physical presence in the forum.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
And the Supreme Court in J. McIntyre Machinery versus Necastro, which came after Burnham, also stated that presence within the state at the time the suit commences through service of process constitutes explicit consent to jurisdiction.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
Do you think the constitutional test for the adequacy of service on a physically present person requires that the service actually achieve notice or just be fairly and reasonably calculated to achieve notice?

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
So I think it must substantially comply with the rules and it must also provide service, provide notice.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
Here, notice wasn't an issue.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
Rules and then actually achieve notice?

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
No, it just must, it must give, there must be fair play on a reasonable basis.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
There can be situations where there isn't actual notice and those mechanisms have, you know, someone could come in and say, I didn't read my email, I didn't, you know, I didn't talk to this person, any number of things.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Those aren't the facts here.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
But when you ask us to come up with a rule, if we're going to publish, we don't want to yank people into court.

[00:20:43] Speaker 04:
That, I mean, does, I think what my colleague here is saying, that is actual notice an important component of this?

[00:20:56] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I don't think it's, it's not necessary under the rules.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
It has to be reasonably calculated to provide notice.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
There was no- So you're saying it's fact dependent?

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
What if my, what if he was living in a motel for,

[00:21:12] Speaker 04:
God only knows how long, and they did the substitute service on the person at the front desk.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
So would that be adequate?

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
I think it would be a fact-dependent situation.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
Here, for instance... If you're going to have a rule, then we apply rules.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
And so I'm kind of thinking that would be a different situation.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
So I don't want to have a rule that drags

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
a person that you can serve someone stays in a motel for a couple of days and you can serve the person at the front desk.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
Understood, your honor.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
And actually, our position is that it's not necessary for the court to state a new rule today.

[00:22:01] Speaker 02:
This is the rule in Burnham.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
This is the rule from Pinoyer over 100 years of precedent.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
that and as Mr. Dane stated in his brief that he cited many cases that reiterate this point that physical presence in the forum is sufficient.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
So you're contending you're not pushing Burnham a little further.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
You don't have personal service.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
So Burnham only says otherwise in state service on someone who is physically present in the forum is

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
satisfactory for due process.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't define in-state service.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
So how are you defining in-state service?

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
Understood.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
So we are defining in-state service as service according to the rules of due process.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
And that would be the first prong.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
That would be the physical presence.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
And then in-state service would be

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
service in compliance with either the federal rules or California Civil Procedure Rule 415.20, which provides for substitute service.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
All of those methods of service would provide or would reasonably provide notice.

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
And here, Mr. Liu had notice of the proceedings, and he also participated fully in the proceedings.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
This is not a situation where

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
There was a default judgment.

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
He was represented and participated in the proceedings below.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
So is it, is what going on here is like there's a, there was an arbitration that's in China that you tried to enforce it there.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
You tried to enforce it.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
You have an enforceable judgment in Singapore and now he's here and you want to enforce it here because he's got in your view property here because you want to get your money.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
Is that, is that what's going on here?

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, essentially.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
And is the property here the house?

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
That is one of the assets, I believe, yes.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
So how much was this judgment for in terms of the, I don't know, when you translated into dollars?

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, I think it was the record states was around $30 million.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
I don't know the exact exchange rate now.

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
But it was a significant multi-million dollar figure, tens of millions of dollars, I believe.

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Unless there are any further questions, I think I will build my time.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
All right, Mr. Dane, you have two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
I see, Justice, Judge Coe looking at me very skeptically.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
So I do want to address one of the issues, and I don't want to hammer on it, but in every

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
Court that has looked at what Burnham has said, it's stated that it requires physical service.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
So let me just please read three.

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
The U.S.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
Supreme Court.

[00:25:16] Speaker 04:
It requires physical service.

[00:25:17] Speaker 04:
Do you mean physical presence, personal service?

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
No, physical service means personal service, not presence.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
So again, I said just recently in 2023, the U.S.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Supreme Court in Mallory, it wasn't just Judge Gorsuch,

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
who said traditional tag rule holding that individuals physically served are subject to suit there.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
In her dissent to the majority on another issue, Justice Barrett explained tag jurisdiction as personal service upon a defendant physically present in the form state.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
The Ninth Circuit held personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be acquired in one of two ways.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
by personal service of that defendant or by means of defendant's minimum contacts.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
In that context, doesn't personal service, the word personal there is being used to signify that the person of the defendant is in the territory when he served.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
It's a code for presence, right?

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
Physical presence is a separate thing.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
Personal service is physically handing it to the defendant.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
Now, what do you do with the language from International Shoe that historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personum is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person, hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally abiding home?

[00:26:51] Speaker 00:
That's one of the two prongs, and that's the point that even Burnham was decided on.

[00:26:55] Speaker 00:
You have the physical presence because you don't have minimum contacts,

[00:26:59] Speaker 00:
but you need the second element.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
That's the point.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
It's not going far enough.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
That's just saying.

[00:27:06] Speaker 00:
And that's what the district court, I think, conflated or confused, is a better term, that he said, yes, he's physically present.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
And there are cases that say you can achieve that with physical presence.

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
But you have to do it with personal service.

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
But isn't that just, I mean, hasn't the Supreme Court recognized in other contexts that modes of service

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
Beyond handing a subpoena summons to someone can comply with due process are you familiar with the case about the person living in a housing project and Notice was mailed to the person's door And the Supreme Court said that's not good enough That's kind of akin to judge Callahan's example of leaving it with the hotel clerk But what's better is mailing it to the person because in the at that time the 20th century We have reliable mails that we didn't have at the time of the founding

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
Why doesn't that principle apply here?

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
Again, you still have to address the minimum contacts.

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
You still have to address the other issues.

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
In this case, the only connection, the only connection is physical presence.

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
And that is whether you step over the line and you are in the state.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
We can't confuse the two.

[00:28:19] Speaker 00:
When we're talking about minimum contacts, personal service isn't the key there because you have already exceeded

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
to the benefits of that state.

[00:28:29] Speaker 00:
So you can be substituted to service, because you're deemed to already know you exceeded to the benefits of the state.

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
But where you have- Do you have any additional questions?

[00:28:40] Speaker 04:
Judge Koh?

[00:28:41] Speaker 04:
No, thank you.

[00:28:41] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
You've gone- Oh, I have.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:28:44] Speaker 04:
I apologize.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
Thank you so much, Your Honors.

[00:28:47] Speaker 04:
So this matter will now stand submitted.

[00:28:49] Speaker 04:
Thank you both for your helpful argument.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
And this matter will stand submitted.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
Thank you so much.