Kambarov alleged that Quality Counts completed an employment report about him, sold the report to Elwood Staffing, and published inaccurate information. The report concerned whether an Oregon state court validly convicted an Oregon resident of a felony and undermined Kambarov's eligibility for employment with an Oregon branch of Elwood Staffing.
The district court had dismissed the claim for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the conclusion de novo, noting that where a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.
To determine if personal jurisdiction exists, the court applied Oregon's long-arm statute and the three-part test from Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. The court applied the Calder effects test to determine whether Quality Counts purposefully directed conduct at Oregon.
The panel held that the first element of the Calder test was satisfied because Quality Counts committed intentional acts by completing the report and publishing inaccurate information.
The court held the second element satisfied because Quality Counts expressly aimed the dissemination of the allegedly false report at Oregon. The report was drawn from Oregon state court records, and the only harm Kambarov suffered—the termination of his employment and related emotional harm—occurred in Oregon.
Although Elwood Staffing is headquartered in Indiana, an Oregon office requested the report and had direct access to Quality Counts' portal. The court concluded that in no meaningful sense was the report "directed toward" Indiana, and Oregon remained the focal point of the report and the harm suffered.
The third Calder element was also satisfied because Quality Counts knew Kambarov lived in Oregon and had applied for a job with Elwood Staffing there. By effectively publishing the false report in Oregon, the company knew or should have known it would cause reputational harm in the state.
Because the district court did not address the second and third Briskin factors regarding whether the claim arises out of forum-related activities and whether jurisdiction comports with fair play, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for the court to complete the jurisdictional analysis.