The Law Governing Personal Jurisdiction "'California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of California and the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., 410.10.) The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions "if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate '"traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."'"'" (Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); accord, Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434.) Under the minimum contacts test personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1062; Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" as to make it consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum even when the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum. (Vons, at p. 446.) Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, requires some nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's activities in the forum state. Under well-established case law specific jurisdiction exists when: (1) the defendant has "purposefully availed" himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with "'fair play and substantial justice.'" (Pavlovich. supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268; accord, Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.) There are no bright line rules for determining jurisdiction. "'Rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite "affiliating circumstances" are present.'" (Pavlovich, at p. 268.)