v. Pabst, 43 Cal.2d 254, 273 P.2d 257, 260 (1954) (reasoning that the mere existence of a family relationship did not establish agency in context of negligence claim). Moreover, as a general rule, courts consider personal jurisdiction as it relates to each individual defendant. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S, A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416-17, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (“unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State”). Thus, even if a unilateral act is done with a nonresident defendant’s knowledge or acquiescence, such contact is insufficient. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 93-94, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Against this backdrop, the court grants the
holding that the court had discretion to allow substitution of plaintiffs to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements in order to give the court jurisdiction where no jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed holding that no jurisdiction existed over defendantfather based on his mere acquiescence to allow child to live in california holding over holding that a court lacks jurisdiction when the issues in a case are no longer live holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents