From: Tony@TheDeliKing.com   
      
   The imbecile represented himself in court.   
      
   i. Purposeful interjection   
      
   "Even if there is sufficient interjection into the state to satisfy the   
   purposeful availment prong, the degree of interjection is a factor to be   
   weighed in assessing the overall reasonableness of jurisdiction under   
   the reasonableness prong." Core-Vent, 11 F.3d at 1488 (internal citation   
   omitted). Here, the Worleys sold and shipped goods into California over   
   2500 times and established significant business relations with multiple   
   California entities. Accordingly, the Court finds that the purposeful   
   interjection factor weighs in favor of the Court's exercise of personal   
   jurisdiction.   
      
   ii. The Worley's burden of defending in California   
      
   The Worleys contend that it would be extremely burdensome to litigate   
   this matter in California. Mr. and Mrs. Worley reside in Florida.   
   Moreover, since the filing of the instant motion, the Worleys have   
   decided for financial reasons to represent themselves pro persona.   
   (Defs' Reply at 1.)   
      
   The Court notes that EQ Stuff is represented by counsel in California.   
      
   Although it may be difficult for the Worleys to defend in California,   
   such a requirement is not unreasonable. The Worley's company EQ Stuff is   
   subject to jurisdiction in California, thus the Worleys will likely be   
   in California for the defense of EQ Stuff. Whether the litigation takes   
   place in California or Florida has no bearing on the Worley's decision   
   to represent themselves pro persona — that decision had to be made   
   regardless of the forum state. Accordingly, the Court finds that the   
   Worley's burden of defending in California is not unreasonable.  iii.   
   California's interest in resolving this dispute   
      
   Because the plaintiff maintains its headquarters and principal place of   
   business in California, California has a strong interest in providing an   
   effective means of redress for its residents tortiously injured.   
   Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1323. Thus, the Court finds that this factor   
   weighs in DirecTV's favor.   
      
   iv. Most efficient forum for resolution of dispute   
      
   The most efficient resolution will be achieved by a court that is   
   already "familiar with the facts and procedural history of the   
   litigation." Ballard, 65 F.3d at 1502. This Court has already invested   
   time and resources with this case, having issued both a Temporary   
   Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction after extensive briefing   
   on the merits. This Court also has five related cases pending before it.   
   The Court, therefore, finds that the most efficient forum for resolution   
   of the dispute is this forum.   
      
   v. Conclusion   
      
   The Court concludes that the Worleys failed to present a compelling case   
   that this Court's exercise of jurisdiction in California would be   
   unreasonable.   
      
   d. Conclusion   
      
   Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the Worleys are   
   subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.   
      
   Because the Court finds that the Worleys are subject to personal   
   jurisdiction in this Court under the doctrine of specific jurisdiction,   
   the Court does not address the issue of general jurisdiction.   
      
   https://casetext.com/case/directv-inc-v-eq-stuff-inc   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)