In Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, a California plaintiff brought a suit for defamation against a writer and the editor of the National Enquirer, a national newspaper based in Florida, but with a circulation of approximately 600,000 in California. The allegedly libelous story concerned a California resident whose television career was centered in California. The writer lived in Florida and did not personally visit California but relied on phone calls to sources in California for information contained in the article. On these facts the Supreme Court concluded that jurisdiction over defendants was proper "based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California." ( Calder v. Jones, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 789. Defendants knew their article "would have a potentially devastating impact upon plaintiff. And they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by her in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation." ( Id. at pp. 789-790 104 S. Ct. at p. 1487.) Under the circumstances, the court found defendants must reasonably expect to be " 'haled into court' " in California to defend against plaintiff's tort claims. ( Id. at p. 790.) Shirley Jones, a well-known actress living in California, brought a libel suit in California against a reporter and an editor for an allegedly defamatory article published in the National Enquirer, a national weekly publication with a circulation of about 600,000 in California. (Id. at pp. 784-786.) Both the reporter and the editor worked for the National Enquirer at its headquarters in Florida. (Id. at p. 785.) The reporter and the editor moved to quash service of process on the ground neither had sufficient minimum contacts with California. (Id. at pp. 786-787.) The United States Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over the reporter and the editor in California was proper "based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California." (Calder, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 789.) Those effects were felt in California because, the court explained, "the 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. The article was drawn from California sources, and the brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent's emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California." (Id. at pp. 788-789.) "In sum," the court concluded, "California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered." (Id. at p. 789.) The court noted too the intentional acts of the reporter and the editor "were expressly aimed at California" in that they wrote or edited an article "they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent" and "knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation." (Id. at pp. 789-790.) The National Enquirer published an allegedly libelous story concerning the California activities of a California resident. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 784-85. The defendants were Florida residents, one a reporter for and the other the president of the Enquirer. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 785-86. Most of the research and writing of the article was done in Florida. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 785. The Calder court held that the defendants, who between them wrote and edited the article, could anticipate being haled into a California court when the article was published, as California was the state in which the subject of the article resided and where the Enquirer had its largest circulation. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 789-90. The article itself was the basis of the injury and the cause of action. In Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804, 104 S. Ct. 1482, the plaintiff Shirley Jones brought suit in California against the defendants South and Calder, claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by the defendants in Florida. The article was published in a national magazine (National Enquirer) that had a large circulation in California. South, who wrote the first draft of the article, lived in Florida, and did most of his research in Florida, relying on phone calls to sources in California for the information contained in the article. Calder, the president and editor of the Enquirer, was also a resident of Florida. Calder reviewed South's draft and edited it in its final form. In finding that California had specific jurisdiction over South's and Calder's persons under these facts, the Calder court stated that California was "the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered," and that jurisdiction over their persons was "proper in California based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California." ( Calder, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 789.) Addressing due process concerns, the Calder court stated: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has 'certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on 'the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.' The plaintiff's lack of 'contacts' will not defeat otherwise proper jurisdiction, but they may be so manifold as to permit jurisdiction when it would not exist in their absence." ( Calder, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 788.) Calder concluded that California courts had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in Florida because defendants' "intentional conduct in Florida was calculated to cause injury to respondent in California." ( Calder, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 791.) The Supreme Court ruled California courts had personal jurisdiction over Florida defendants who had written, edited, and widely distributed in California an allegedly libelous story concerning the California activities of a California resident. Id. at 789-91. Because "California was the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered," the Court noted the defendants' intentional actions were "expressly aimed at California" and were not merely untargeted negligence. Id. at 789. Under those circumstances, the Court concluded the defendants must have "'reasonably anticipated being haled into court'" in California to answer for the truth of the statements made in their widely disseminated article. Id. at 789-90.