Watson

dissenting:

The majority correctly states the test for identifying the functions and characteristics of a general agent, but it misdes-cribes the precise functions with respect to which American Eurocopter fills that role. Here American Eurocopter “performs services that are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation’s own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services.” Doe v. Unocal, 248 F.3d 915 , 928 (9th Cir.2001). American Eurocopter acts as Eurocopter’s exclusive distributor, marketer and sales center in the United States. The existence of third-party maintenance facilities does not negate the fact that American Eurocopter’s sales presence effectively substitutes directly for that of Eurocopter. Moreover, all Eurocopter spare parts distributed to American service centers must “pass through” American Eurocopter; therefore an inescapable practical relationship must exist between these maintenance facilities and American Eurocopter. Maintenance facilities can hardly function independently of their parts supplier.

By denying general agency to American Eurocopter, the majority…

MEMORANDUM **

Doreen Watson and Barbara Jerpe appeal the district court’s dismissal of their wrongful death actions for lack of personal jurisdiction over Eurocopter (a French aircraft manufacturer formally known as Eu-rocopter, S.A.S.). We affirm.

To sustain specific personal jurisdiction, the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum related activity. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). Simple placement of a spare part in the stream of commerce does not meet this test. In fact, one part was sold to a third party in Canada and the other was sold to a third party in Hawaii before eventually being installed on the helicopter. The district court did not err in holding that the claim did not arise out of Eurocopter’s forum related activity and that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Eurocopter.

The district court also lacked general personal jurisdiction over Eurocopter. Watson and Jerpe contend that the district court should have exercised general jurisdiction over Eurocopter because American Eurocopter Corporation (“American Euro-copter”) was Eurocopter’s general agent. *718 See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d…