In Orr v. Materion Corporation, a California Superior Court granted an Ohio corporation’s motion to quash service of summons, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a case involving alleged violations of California’s Trap and Trace Law (Penal Code section 638.51). The decision offers important guidance for out-of-state businesses facing California privacy litigation based on website tracking technologies.
Background
The plaintiff, a California resident, alleged that when she visited Materion’s website in April 2020, the company enabled LinkedIn code to surveil her online activity in violation of California law. Materion, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, moved to quash service of summons on the ground that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over it.
The Court’s Analysis
General Jurisdiction. The court found no basis for general jurisdiction. Materion presented evidence that it has no office, property, employees, bank accounts, or web servers in California, and that as a business-to-business supplier, it makes no direct sales or generates any direct revenue in California.
Specific Jurisdiction. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments for specific jurisdiction:
Physical Presence Arguments Fail. The plaintiff argued that Materion maintained a physical presence in California through a leased facility in Santa Clara and an authorized distributor in Ontario, California. The court rejected both arguments, noting that the Santa Clara property was leased by a separate subsidiary entity, and a parent-subsidiary relationship alone does not subject a nonresident parent to personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff offered no evidence of an alter ego relationship or other basis to impute the subsidiary’s contacts to Materion.
Website Operation Does Not Equal Purposeful Availment. The court held that Materion’s operation of a website did not constitute purposeful availment of California’s benefits. The plaintiff failed to show that Materion’s website targeted California residents specifically; rather, it was the plaintiff who initiated contact with Materion, and any surveillance occurred only after that contact.
Privacy Statement Compliance Is Not Forum Targeting. The court rejected the argument that Materion’s Privacy Statement, which addressed California privacy laws, demonstrated purposeful direction toward California. The court reasoned that if such compliance language were sufficient to establish jurisdiction, any company operating a website that seeks to comply with multiple states’ privacy regulations would be subject to jurisdiction in all of those states.
Distinguished from Briskin v. Shopify. The court distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025), where the defendant was alleged to have known the plaintiff’s computer was located in California and implanted cookies that remained on the plaintiff’s computer to collect data about online shopping activities. No such allegations were present in this case.
Orr v. Materion Corp., No. 25STCV25807, 2026 WL 562115 (Cal.Super. Feb. 23, 2026).
