CONCLUSION
Based on the nature of Palka’s forum-related activities and their relationship to the claims asserted, we conclude that California could, consistent with due process, exercise personal jurisdiction over Palka. Because California’s long-arm statute extends to the limit of due process and is applicable in this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), the district court erred in concluding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Palka. We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction.[1] Both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) are denied.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Carolyn N. McCULLOCH, Lucyann W. Cameron, Elizabeth P. Smoot, the Original Red Plate Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ALBERT E. PRICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 86–6241, 86–6751.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted June 2, 1987.
Decided July 28, 1987.
- ↑ Hylwa’s motion to enjoin Palka from prosecuting a related ERISA action against Hylwa that was filed in federal district court in Kansas. Hylwa’s notice of appeal, however, cites only the district court’s order filed on January 14, 1986, and entered on January 16, 1986. E.R. Tab 2. That order dismissed the complaint for want of personal jurisdiction and contains no reference to Hylwa’s motion for injunctive relief. Hylwa’s motion for injunctive relief therefore is not before us.
We note that it is unclear from the record whether the district court’s earlier minute order issued on November 20, 1985 denying Hylwa’s motion for injunctive relief was based on the merits or based on the court’s belief that it could not assert personal jurisdiction over Palka. In either case, the district court is free on remand to reconsider the appropriateness of enjoining Palka from prosecuting the Kansas action in light of our holding that the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Palka in this action.
