Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Superior Court

Opinion

I.

Introduction

In Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 , 58 P.3d 2 ] (Pavlovich), the California Supreme Court held an out-of-state defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in California based upon evidence establishing the defendant engaged in intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting California and the defendant knew the intentional conduct would cause harm in this state. In this case, we apply this “effects” test, as expressed in Pavlovich, and conclude the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee (the Milwaukee Archdiocese) is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California.

Plaintiff Eric Nathan Paino alleged and declared under oath that when he was a boy, Fr. Siegfried Widera (Widera), a Roman Catholic priest, molested him. Widera was working at a parish in Orange County when the alleged molestation occurred. Paino sued the Milwaukee Archdiocese, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange (the Orange Diocese), and Widera. Paino alleged the Milwaukee Archdiocese engaged in a cover-up of Widera’s prior misconduct, which included a conviction in Wisconsin for sexual perversion against a boy, and arranged for Widera to move to California in 1973.

The evidence showed the Milwaukee Archdiocese sought to rid itself of Widera by sending him into California knowing he was a pedophile and had been convicted in Wisconsin of sexual perversion against a boy. Paino met his burden of proving, for purposes of establishing specific personal jurisdiction, the Milwaukee Archdiocese engaged in intentional conduct expressly aimed at California and knew its conduct would cause harm in this state. We therefore deny the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the order denying the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s motion to quash service of summons.

Our opinion resolves only the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s writ petition and reviews only jurisdictional facts. We do not address the merit of any claims or defenses.

In October 1976, Widera contacted the Archdiocesan Personnel Board and asked what positions would be open if he returned to Wisconsin. Widera considered asking for a leave of absence or for work in a California parish.

On October 29, 1976, Waldbauer sent Widera a letter stating: “This letter is written to you to follow our telephone conversation Wednesday morning. This relates to the recommendation of the Personnel Board at its meeting of October 26th. After I spoke with you, I called the Archbishop, who is aware of this direction and supports its intent. [][] The Personnel Board recommends a choice. First, that you pursue significant counseling to assist you in coming in touch with yourself about the action that has brought about a hasty exit from your last two assignments. . . . Subsequent to such therapy, you would be considered for an appointment within the Archdiocese. The alternative would be for you to be released to the services of another diocese; with the permission of the Archbishop, you would request to minister elsewhere. Should you select the second alternative, the Board would ask periodic reports about your status.”

In response, Widera wrote, “the choice of being released to the service of another diocese has its merits.” Widera announced he would travel to Milwaukee in November to personally discuss the situation. Widera also wrote: “As to my present situation, I was in contact with Dr. Graham and [the ombudsman] before I left Wisconsin. It was on advice that I left the area. But think that it is time for me to return.”

On December 3, 1976, Cousins informed the Archdiocesan Personnel Board that “S. Widera—will spend some time with his parents in Florida and then go to California to continue psychotherapy” and that Cousins “plans to contact Bishop Johnson of Orange to see if there might be something available for Widera.” Cousins’s authorization was necessary for Widera to work as a priest outside of the Milwaukee Archdiocese. On December 17, 1976, Cousins informed the board he had “called Bishop Johnson in Orange about possibility for S. Widera.”

In a letter dated December 20, 1976, Cousins wrote to Bishop William Johnson (Johnson) and the secretary/chancellor of the Diocese of Orange, Fr. Michael Driscoll (Driscoll). Cousins wrote: “A few days ago I talked by phone to Bishop Johnson about a possible pastoral assignment for Father Siegfried Widera of this Archdiocese. The conversation was very general and the Bishop suggested that perhaps something could be done on a temporary

On January 10, 1977, Widera was appointed as associate pastor “in hospitality” at St. Pius V Parish in Buena Park. Driscoll wrote to Cousins confirming the appointment. In response, Cousins wrote a letter to Johnson confirming Widera would remain a member of the Milwaukee Archdiocese and stating: “Permit me to express my sincere thanks to you and those involved for this consideration of a priest who has done good work and whose absence from the Diocese is predicated upon the local situation discussed in earlier letters, [f] I fully expect that upon the recommendation of those professionally helping him at the present time he will be reassigned in our Archdiocese.” Cousins also wrote to Widera telling him: “According to our earlier conversations, your stay in California will be determined by the doctor recommended to you before your departure and to whom I confidently trust you have committed yourself for necessary help. Treatment is important to you and essential to your future assignment, but I have every reason to believe that you will accept this condition and work towards an early return.”

The Milwaukee Archdiocese did not inform the Orange Diocese of Widera’s criminal conviction for sexual perversion, provided no specific information regarding any of the molestation allegations, and did not warn that Widera might be a danger among children. Driscoll testified he would not

During the period in which Widera worked in California but was incardinated in Wisconsin, he remained subject to the jurisdiction, authority, and control of the Archbishop of Milwaukee. The Archbishop of Milwaukee had the authority to recall Widera to Wisconsin, to remove his faculties as a priest, to investigate whether he had committed acts of molestation, and to petition the Pope to laicize him.

Widera worked at St. Justin Martyr Parish in Anaheim from April 1977 to July 1981. Widera allegedly molested two boys while serving at St. Justin Martyr. There is no evidence these allegations were reported at the time to any church officials. In July 1981, Widera was transferred to St. Edward’s Parish in Dana Point because diocesan policy was to rotate associate pastors every four years.

D. Widera Is Excardinated from the Milwaukee Archdiocese and Incardinated in the Orange Diocese.

In October of 1981, Widera sought incardination into the Orange Diocese. Under canon law, a diocesan priest cannot be incardinated in two dioceses at the same time. (See Stevens v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 885.) The proper canonical process was to excardinate Widera from the Milwaukee Archdiocese and to incardinate him into the Orange Diocese. Once a diocesan priest becomes incardinated in a new diocese, his relationships, obligations, and connections with the former diocese cease.

Widera was excardinated from the Milwaukee Archdiocese and incardinated in the Orange Diocese on November 23, 1981. Widera accordingly was removed from the Milwaukee Archdiocesan priest fund, personnel roll, pension plan, priest senate, and payroll.

Correspondence between the Milwaukee Archdiocese and the Orange Diocese was exchanged during the process of Widera’s excardination and incardination. In a letter dated October 27, 1981, Driscoll formally requested the Archbishop of Milwaukee to excardinate Widera. Driscoll wrote, “Father Widera came to the Diocese for medical reasons and [Cousins] wrote [Johnson], regarding the possibility of extending the Hospitality of the Diocese of Orange to Father Widera while he was on leave from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.” (Italics added.) In a letter dated November 23, 1981, enclosing the letter of excardination, Msgr. Sylvester Glass, the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s Vicar General, wrote to Driscoll: “Canon 117, 2s[degrees]s

Widera’s decree of incardination in the Orange Diocese stated the diocese was “officially advised that you [Widera] have [received] a decree of excardination from THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE with assurance of your good character, your course of studies and your good example.” (Italics added.)

After incardination in the Orange Diocese, Widera worked at several parishes until he was assigned to St. Martin de Forres in Yorba Linda in July 1985. Faino attended St. Martin de Forres. Faino declared under oath: “When Father Widera was transferred to St. Martin de Forres, he immediately began to befriend me and my family. [H ... In 1985, shortly after he came to St. Martin de Forres, and when I was 8 years old, Father Widera began to molest me.”

m.

Proceedings in the Trial Court

In April 2002, Faino filed a complaint against the Orange Diocese, the Milwaukee Archdiocese, and Widera, alleging 11 causes of action based upon alleged acts of sexual abuse. Faino alleged that “[e]ven though the Defendants Dioceses knew and should have known that Father Widera had molested and sexually abused minors, and even though the Defendant Dioceses had actual and constructive knowledge of the molestations and sexual abuses, the Defendants Dioceses [] covered up the molestations and abuses by Father Widera, continued to allow Father Widera to act as a Catholic priest within the Defendants Dioceses [], continued to hold Father Widera out as a Catholic priest who could be trusted with minor parishioners and minor students, continued to allow Father Widera to work with minor parishioners and minor students on a daily basis, and continued to move Father Widera around to different Catholic churches within the Defendants Dioceses[].”

The Milwaukee Archdiocese moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Faino opposed the motion.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the order denying its motion to quash. We issued an order to show cause, asked for a response to the petition, and heard oral argument.

rv.

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

“When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to justify jurisdiction.” (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080 , 1090 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 683 ]; see also Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434 , 449 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899 , 926 P.2d 1085 ] (Vons).) The plaintiff must “ ‘present facts demonstrating that the conduct of defendants related to the pleaded causes is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.” [Citation.]’ ” (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091.) “An unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in meeting the plaintiff’s burden of proving minimum contacts.” (Id. at p. 1091.)

When the evidence of jurisdictional facts is not in dispute, whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction is a legal question subject to de novo review. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.) When evidence of jurisdiction is in dispute, the trial court’s determination of factual issues is reviewed for substantial evidence. (Ibid.; see also DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1091.) We must accept the trial court’s resolution of factual issues and draw all reasonable inferences in support of

V.

Jurisdictional Requirements

California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The statute “manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations.” (Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442 , 445 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 546 P.2d 322 ].)

The federal Constitution permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum such that “maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ [Citations.]” (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310 , 316 [ 90 L.Ed. 95 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ].) “The ‘substantial connection,’ [citations], between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. [Citations.]” (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102 , 112 [ 94 L.Ed.2d 92 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 ].)

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) A nonresident defendant is subject to the forum’s general jurisdiction where the defendant’s contacts are “ ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437 , 445, 446 [ 96 L.Ed. 485 , 72 S.Ct. 413 ].) In that situation, the cause of action need not be related to the defendant’s contacts. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445; Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143 , 147 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 545 P.2d 264 ].) “Such a defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.)

If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts with the forum state, the defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if (1) “ ‘the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits’ ” with respect to the matter in controversy, (2) “ ‘the

Discussion

Paino does not assert the Milwaukee Archdiocese is subject to general jurisdiction in California. He contends the trial court was correct in concluding the Milwaukee Archdiocese was subject to specific jurisdiction because the Milwaukee Archdiocese purposefully availed itself of forum benefits by taking actions to move Widera, a known pedophile, into California, where he continued to molest boys.

A. Purposeful Availment.

The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant’s “ ‘intentionally’ ” and is satisfied “ ‘when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on’ his contacts with the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.) The purposeful availment requirement is intended to ensure a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “ ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ ” contacts, or as a result of the “ ‘unilateral activity’ ” of another party or a third person. (Ibid.) Purposeful availment asks whether the defendant’s “conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286 , 297 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 490 , 100 S.Ct. 559 ].)

1. Express Aiming or Targeting

Under the “effects” test for determining purposeful availment, a defendant might be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state if the defendant engaged in intentional conduct “expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state,” and the defendant knew the intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 271.)

In Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at page 262, the Supreme Court considered whether a California court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over a defendant based upon the posting of an Internet Web site. Pavlovich was a

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVD CAA), is a nonprofit trade organization organized under Delaware law with its principal place of business in California. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 266.) DVD CAA’s purpose was to control and administer licensing of CSS technology. (Ibid.) DVD CAA sued Pavlovich in California, alleging he misappropriated its trade secrets by posting the DeCSS program on his Web site. (Id. at p. 267.) The evidence showed Pavlovich knew of an organization which controlled the use of CSS technology, but did not learn that organization was DVD CAA or that DVD CAA had its principal place of business in California until after the lawsuit was filed. (Ibid.) DVD CAA asserted personal jurisdiction on the ground Pavlovich knew his actions would harm California businesses.

The California Supreme Court examined and clarified the effects test for determining purposeful availment. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th 262 .) The court turned first to Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783 [ 79 L.Ed.2d 804 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 ] (Calder) in which the United States Supreme Court described the “ ‘effects test’ ” in the defamation context. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.) In Calder, a reporter in Florida wrote an article for the National Enquirer about Shirley Jones, a well-known actress who lived and worked in California. Jones sued the reporter and the editor for libel in California. They moved to quash service of process on the ground they lacked minimum contacts with California. (Calder, supra, 465 U.S. at pp. 785-786.) The United States Supreme Court disagreed, and upheld jurisdiction because “[t]he allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. It impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California. . . . [T]he brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent’s emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the ‘effects’ of their Florida conduct in California.” (Id. at pp. 788-789, fn. omitted.) The defendants’ intentional conduct was “expressly aimed at California,” where the defendants knew it potentially would harm Jones. (Id. at p. 789.)

The Pavlovich court recognized the lack of uniformity in applying the Calder test. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 270.) In particular, the

Applying the effects test, the Pavlovich court concluded Pavlovich was not subject to California jurisdiction because there was no evidence the Web site targeted California or any California resident visited the Web site. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 274.) The court concluded Pavlovich’s knowledge that his tortious conduct might harm certain industries centered in California, though relevant to any determination of personal jurisdiction, “alone is insufficient to establish express aiming at the forum state as required by the effects test.” (Id. at p. 278.)

2. Application of Effects Test

Did the Milwaukee Archdiocese engage in intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting California, knowing the intentional conduct would cause harm in this state? The evidence supports the conclusion the Milwaukee Archdiocese intentionally sent Widera to California to get him out of Wisconsin where he had been convicted of sexual perversion against a boy and could create further problems for the Milwaukee Archdiocese. As the trial court concluded, “the evidence is certainly sufficient to show that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee chose to place this troublesome member of its clergy here in California as a sort of lend-lease program with the hope that he would be out of their sight and out of their jurisdiction.” The evidence supported the conclusion the Milwaukee Archdiocese knew Widera was a pedophile and posed a serious threat of sexually abusing boys in California. By sending a known pedophile into California, the Milwaukee Archdiocese aimed its intentional conduct directly at this state. The brunt of the harm, indeed all of the harm, resulted in California. Having sent Widera into California knowing he was a convicted child abuser and a pedophile, the Milwaukee Archdiocese reasonably could expect to be haled into court in California to answer for the consequences of its actions.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese contends the evidence does not support a finding of purposeful availment. The Milwaukee Archdiocese contends Widera voluntarily moved to California in 1976 because he had family here.

Once Widera was in California, the Milwaukee Archdiocese never recalled him, although it had the power to do so, never questioned him, never monitored his treatment, and never conducted an investigation to determine whether he continued to molest boys. The Milwaukee Archdiocese allowed Widera to be excardinated so he could be incardinated in the Orange Diocese. Accepting the trial court’s resolution of factual issues and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s order (Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 584), we conclude the evidence supports the finding that the Milwaukee Archdiocese made and enacted a concerted plan to rid itself of Widera by intentionally placing him in California.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese contends it sufficiently disclosed Widera’s prior misconduct to the Orange Diocese. The Milwaukee Archdiocese points to Cousins’s letter of December 20, 1976, in which Cousins wrote that Widera “[i]n his earlier years” had “a moral problem having to do with a boy in school” and that “[m]ore recently . . . there has been a repetition.”

Is it relevant to the “effects” test whether or not the Milwaukee Archdiocese disclosed Widera’s prior misconduct to the Orange Diocese? No. The Milwaukee Archdiocese rid itself of Widera by sending him into California, knowing he was a pedophile and had been convicted of perversion with a boy. The Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct was intentional and was expressly aimed at California. The Milwaukee Archdiocese knew its intentional conduct would cause harm in California. Thus, the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct satisfied the “effects” test, regardless whether it gave the Orange Diocese “fair warning” of Widera’s prior misconduct.

Even if considered, Cousins’s letter, with all reasonable inferences favoring the trial court’s order (Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 584), supports the conclusion the Milwaukee Archdiocese engaged in express aiming at or targeting California. The letter appears to be intentionally vague and incomplete; it does not describe what is meant by “a

Another issue remains in applying the effects test. In Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th 262 , the court concluded Pavlovich’s knowledge that his tortious conduct might harm certain industries centered in California was not dispositive of jurisdiction. “Because the only evidence in the record even suggesting express aiming is Pavlovich’s knowledge that his conduct may harm industries centered in California, due process requires us to decline jurisdiction over his person.” (Id. at p. 278.) Some federal courts, in formulating the effects test, have concluded “ ‘express aiming’ encompasses wrongful conduct individually targeting a known forum resident.” (Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1082 , 1087; see also, e.g., Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 130 F.3d 414 , 416.)

Here, the Milwaukee Archdiocese did not know who Paino was and could not have expressly aimed its conduct at him. However, we do not believe the effects test required the Milwaukee Archdiocese to know the identities of Widera’s future victims. This is not a situation, as in Pavlovich, where the defendant’s conduct could harm any of a number of industries and businesses, some of which might be centered in California. The nature of the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct—sending a pedophile priest directly into California—meant the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct would harm California residents. In other words, the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct targeted a known group of California residents—boys, specifically, Roman Catholic boys—as a means of getting Widera out of the Milwaukee Archdiocese. Such targeting is, we believe, sufficiently individualized to satisfy due process because the Milwaukee Archdiocese could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in California.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese argues the case of Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, Inc. (1996) 121 N.M. 738 [ 918 P.2d 17 , 1996 NMCA 57] is “strikingly similar” and supports quashing service of summons. We disagree. In that case, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Boise granted a priest’s request to leave Idaho and seek assignment as a priest elsewhere. (Id. at p. 740.) The priest went to New Mexico, where he was accused of molesting a boy. (Ibid.) The New Mexico Court of Appeals held the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise was not subject to jurisdiction in New Mexico

Here, in stark contrast, the Milwaukee Archdiocese did not merely approve a request to work outside the Milwaukee Archdiocese or acquiesce in Widera’s move. Rather, the evidence supports the finding the Milwaukee Archdiocese sought to rid itself of Widera by intentionally sending him into California.

We conclude Paino met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that under the effects test, the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s conduct met the purposeful availment requirement for specific jurisdiction in California. In reaching this conclusion, we do not, and need not, consider canon law; accordingly, we deny Paino’s request for judicial notice.

B. Relationship Between the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s Contacts and the Forum.

We next determine whether Paino’s claims are related to or arise out of the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s forum contacts. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 269.) “A claim need not arise directly from the defendant’s forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident’s forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate.” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th 434 , 452; see also Cornelison v. Chaney, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 , 148 [“The crucial inquiry concerns . . . whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with [the forum] activity”].)

Paino alleged, “[i]n or about 1985, when Plaintiff was about 8 years old, and continuing through when Plaintiff was 9 years old, Father Widera molested Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s brother.” Paino alleged the Milwaukee Archdiocese knew Widera had sexually abused boys but “covered up the molestations and abuses,” continued to allow Widera to act as a Catholic priest, held out Widera as a priest who could be trusted with minors, and continued to allow Widera to work with minors.

Paino’s claims bear a substantial connection to the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s forum contacts. As explained above, the evidence supports the

The Milwaukee Archdiocese argues it had no connection with California at the time Paino was allegedly molested. As the Milwaukee Archdiocese argues, the Orange Diocese was responsible for Widera’s assignments after 1977, Widera was incardinated in the Orange Diocese in 1981, and Paino was not allegedly molested until four years later. In essence, the Milwaukee Archdiocese is asserting its conduct could not have caused Paino’s injuries because, at least by 1981, the Orange Diocese had assumed responsibility for Widera. In Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pages 460-467, the California Supreme Court firmly rejected a proximate cause test for analyzing the relation between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims in determining specific jurisdiction. “To require that the injury be proximately caused by the forum contact is to require that the injury ‘arise out of’ the forum contact in the strictest sense. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the formulation that appears in [United States Supreme Court authority] .... [Citations.] . . . [and] is inconsistent with the relevant standard in Cornelison [v. Chaney]. . . .” (Id. at p. 462.)

Thus, for jurisdiction purposes, the question is not whether the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s forum contacts were the proximate cause of Paino’s injuries, but whether Paino’s claims “bear[] a substantial connection” to those contacts. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 452.) We conclude Paino’s claims are substantially connected to the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s intentional conduct expressly aimed at California.

C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice.

Having determined the Milwaukee Archdiocese established minimum contacts with California and those contacts are substantially related to Paino’s claims, we must consider whether the assertion of specific jurisdiction is fair. In assessing fairness, we consider (1) the burden on the Milwaukee Archdiocese of defending in California, (2) California’s interests, (3) Paino’s interest in obtaining relief, (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and (5) “ ‘the shared interest of several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’ ” (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 480 U.S. at p. 113; see also Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 476.) The defendant bears the

Although the Milwaukee Archdiocese is a not-for-profit organization, it is sufficiently large that defending itself in California would not impose an unreasonable burden on it. California has a particularly strong interest in asserting jurisdiction over the Milwaukee Archdiocese. California has an interest in protecting its children from sexual abuse and providing them a forum to assert such claims. California also has an interest in not becoming the target for pedophiles from other jurisdictions. Paino, a California resident, certainly has an interest in obtaining relief in California for alleged sexual molestation occurring in California. Asserting jurisdiction over the Milwaukee Archdiocese in California would provide the most efficient resolution of the controversy because Paino’s claims against the Orange Diocese are pending here. Finally, Wisconsin and California have a shared interest in furthering the social policy of protecting children from sexual abuse; that social policy is furthered by asserting jurisdiction over the Milwaukee Archdiocese in California.

We therefore conclude assertion of jurisdiction over the Milwaukee Archdiocese is fair.

Disposition

The Milwaukee Archdiocese’s petition for writ of mandate is denied. Paino shall recover his costs incurred in this proceeding.

Sills, P. J., and Rylaarsdam, J., concurred.

Petitioner’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 14, 2004.