In Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd. (9th Cir. 2000) 328 F.3d 1122, the plaintiff, a California company, sued a foreign corporation headquartered in London, England, alleging it had interfered with existing contracts and plaintiff's prospective economic advantage by defaming plaintiff and urging other London-based companies not to do business with it. In requesting the federal district court in California to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the defendant argued all of the alleged conduct had occurred in London; the defendant had no contacts with California; and the foreseeable effect of its conduct on a California corporation was, by itself, insufficient to justify personal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument and upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction, concluding the alleged interference was intended to target a California resident. (Id. at p. 1131.)