{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f43\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f44\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f46\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f47\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f48\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f49\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f50\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f51\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid2587192 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \ssemihidden \styrsid2587192 footnote text;}{\*\cs16 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid2587192 footnote reference;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid2587192 footer;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid2587192 page number;}{ \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \slink21 \styrsid2587192 header;}{\*\cs20 \additive \i \sbasedon10 \styrsid2587192 Emphasis;}{\*\cs21 \additive \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \slink19 \slocked \styrsid2587192 Header Char;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid1598413 \rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid2587192\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183 \rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426 \rsid9776131\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652 \rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author ruddley_e}{\operator ruddley_e}{\creatim\yr2012\mo1\dy5\hr9\min43}{\revtim\yr2012\mo1\dy5\hr9\min50}{\version1}{\edmins4}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3105}{\nofchars17704} {\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws20768}{\vern24689}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1008 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1 \dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot2587192\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2587192 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2587192 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2587192 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2587192 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz1\linex0\headery1440\endnhere\titlepg\pgbrdropt32\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12532406\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14967069 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid9385655 Larsen v. Hyatt}{\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid8916757 Int\rquote l Corp.}{\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid9385655 , 2011 Guam }{ \fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid7809828 26}{\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid9385655 , }{\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid14967069 Opinion}{\i\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid9385655 }{\fs20\insrsid8916757 }{ \fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid8916757 \tab }{\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid5273884 Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid14232315 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2587192 8}}}{ \fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid1470020 of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid8916757\charrsid14232315 NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2587192 12}}}{\fs20\insrsid8916757 \par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20 \tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14967069 {\fs20\insrsid8916757 \par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14967069 {\insrsid8916757 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 DENNIS LARSEN and VIVIAN LARSEN, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Plaintiffs-Appellants, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 v. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 HYATT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, \par HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, \par JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 and 2}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Defendants-Appellees.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Supreme Court Case No. CVA11-003 \par Superior Court Case No. CV0387-10}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 OPINION \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Filed:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 December 22, 2011 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Cite as: 2011 Guam 26 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted July 15, 2011 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid16452974\tbllkhdrrows\tbllkhdrcols \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl \brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid2587192 {\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants: \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 William M. Fitzgerald, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Law Office of William M. Fitzgerald}{\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 259 Martyr St., Ste. 101}{\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910}{\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Appearing for Defendant s-Appellees:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par Louie J. Yanza, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par 1 Agana Bay Ste. 201 \par 446 E Marine Corps Dr. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910}{\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid16452974\tbllkhdrrows\tbllkhdrcols \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl \brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 . \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 TORRES, J.:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Dennis Larsen (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Mr. Larsen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ), a Guam resident, sprained his ankle while walking off the driveway of the Hyatt Resort and Casino in Manila, Philippines (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Manila}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 As a result, Mr. Larsen and his wife Vivian Larsen (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 the Larsens}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Guam against Hyatt International Corporation (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt International}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ), Hyatt Hotels Corporation (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Hotels}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) and John Doe Insurance Companies 1 and 2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens served their complaint on Neil Withers, Director of Finance of P.H.R. Micronesia, Inc. dba Hyatt Regency Guam (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Guam}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Guam is not a defendant in this suit, and the parties do not dispute that Defendants-Appellees, Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels Corporation, are headquartered outside of Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Defendants-Appellees Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels Corporation maintain that the Superior Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and filed a Motion to Quash Service and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Superior Court granted both motions, and t he Larsens appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 To determine whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, we apply the test articulated in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Doe v. Unocal}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Although the Superior Court identified the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 factors, it conducted an insufficient analysis of the facts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Superior Court should also have allowed the Larsens the opportunity for jurisdictional discovery, rather than relying entirely on facts provided by Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We therefore reverse the Superior Court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s Amended Decision and Order and vacate the Judgment dismissing the case. We remand this case for limited jurisdictional discovery on the agency relationship between the Defendants-Appellee s and Hyatt Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 I.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the Superior Court of Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 } {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The complaint listed Hyatt International Corporation, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, and John Doe Insurance Companies 1 and 2 as defendants.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens seek compensation for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of Defendants-Appellees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 negligent maintenance of hotel property, and to collect against the liability insurance of Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens served their complaint on Neal Withers, the Director of Finance for Hyatt Guam, and attached a summons for Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In response, Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels filed a Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Declarations from Roy Lehto, Attorney Baltzar Y. Repol, and Neil Withers were submitted along with Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotel}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s motion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 These parties declared that: (1) the person served was not employed by Hyatt Internatio nal or Hyatt Hotels, nor was he authorized to accept service; (2) Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels are not the managers of Hyatt Guam or Hyatt Manila; (3) Hyatt Guam is managed by Hyatt of Guam Limited (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 HGL}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) based in Hong Kong, while Hyatt Manila is managed by Hyatt International-SEA based in Singapore; and (4) there are statutes in the Philippines which permit suit against negligent parties for bodily injury.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 A letter from the Department of Revenue and Taxation stating that they have no record of ha ving registered or admitted Hyatt International Corporation and Hyatt Hotels Corporation in Guam, no license for the corporations, no record of an appointed agent for service of process for the corporations and no record of having issued Certificates of R egistration/Authority to them was attached.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Additionally, an investigation report from the Philippines and corporate struc ture diagrams for both Hyatt Guam and Hyatt International-SEA were also attached.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In the Larsens}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 opposition, the Larsens argued that jurisdictional contacts of the subsidiary are imputed to the corporate parent and that the Larsens were entitled to jurisdictional discovery.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens offered advertisements and publications about Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels downloaded from the internet , which they claimed established that Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels exercise a significant degree of control over Hyatt Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens also amended their complaint to reflect the information that Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels provided in their Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss.}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid2587192 \chftn }{\insrsid2587192 The amendments, contained in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the motion concerned Hyatt International\rquote s subsidiary relationship with Hyatt Guam, Hyatt International\rquote s relationship with Hyatt Manila, and Hyatt Hotel\rquote s parent relationship over Hyatt International. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Superior Court granted the motions, concluding that the relationship between Defendants-Appellees Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels and subsidiary Hyatt Guam was }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 too far attenuated . . . to subject either to litigation in the forum.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Record on Appeal (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 RA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) tab 44 at 1, 4 (Am. Dec. & Order, Jan. 6, 2011).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The court subsequently dismissed the case with prejudice.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 RA tab 54 (Judgment, Feb. 18, 2011).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Larsens appeal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 II.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 48 U.S.C.A. \'a7 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 112-54 (2011)); 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107, 3108(a) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 This court reviews }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 decisions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 PCI}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Commc}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ns, Inc. v. GST Pacwest Telecom Haw., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 1999 Guam 17 \'b6 15 (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 People v. Quichocho}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 1997 Guam 13 \'b6 3). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We will review a motion to quash service of process }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 de novo.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Pavlovich v. Super. Ct.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 58 P.3d 2, 10\~(Cal. 2002); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Mecca Multimedia, Inc. v. Kurzbard}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 954 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The determination of whether the trial court properly ruled on a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 de novo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 III.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ANALYSIS}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [9]}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 A jurisdictional inquiry involves two steps.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 First, a statute of the territory must confer jurisdiction over the defendants.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Forsythe v. Overmyer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 576 F.2d 779, 782 (9th Cir. 1978).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s long-arm statute permits the courts to }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Organic Act or the constitution of the United States.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 7 GCA \'a7 14109 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Second, the court must determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction in this specific case comports with due process.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 See }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 480 U.S. 102, 108 (1987); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Int}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 l Shoe Co. v. Wash.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 A court may exercise specific jurisdiction only if the defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 contacts with the forum give rise to the cause of action before the court.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 248 F.3d at 923.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 But, when the cause of action does not relate to the foreign corporation}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s activities in the forum state, the court must have general jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.9 (1984).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The claims in this case have no relationship to Guam, nor to the Defendants-Appellees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 contacts with Guam.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Accordingly, the Superior Court could exercise general jurisdiction over the Defendants-Appellees only if their }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 continuous corporate operations within [the] state are . . . so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against the defendant[s] on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ., 433 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Int}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 l Shoe Co.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 326 U.S. at 318) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2849 (2011).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Guam admits that it is subject to general jurisdiction in Guam. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The question we must resolve, therefore, is whether Hyatt Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s contacts with Guam warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction over Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Specifically, we need to determine whether the fact that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Hyatt Guam is four times removed from Hyatt International [and] six times removed from Hyatt Hotels}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 is sufficient basis to dismiss the case.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Appellee}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s Br. at 11 (May 17, 2011).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We conclude that, on the facts of this case, the Larsens should be permitted limited jurisdictional discovery to establish whether Hyatt Guam is an agent of Hyatt Hotels or Hyatt International. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par A.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Imputing General Jurisdiction from a Subsidiary to Parent}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [12]}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 A parent corporation may be imputed a subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s contacts with a forum state if:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 (1) the subsidiary is the alter ego of the parent company; or (2) the parent company exercises a significant degree of control over the subsidiary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 See Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 781 F. Supp 1079 (E.D. Pa. 1992).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 1.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Alter Ego Test}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [13]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Under the alter ego test, the Larsens must allege facts that, if true, would establish that (1) there is such unity of interest and ownership that the parent and subsidiary no longer have separate identities; and (2) failure to disregard their separate identities would result in fraud or injustice.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 248 F.3d at 926.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 } {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 On appeal, the Larsens contend that they do not allege jurisdiction based }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 on the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 alter ego}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 principle.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Appellant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s Br. at 13 (Apr. 19, 2011).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We do not, therefore, address whether Hyatt Guam is the alter ego of the Defendants-Appellees.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 2.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Agency Test}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 An }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 agency relationship is typified by parental control of the subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s internal affairs or daily operations.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 248 F.3d at 926.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The agency test is satisfied by a showing th at the subsidiary functions as the parent corporation}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s representative in that it performs the services that are}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 928 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (citing}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Chan v. Soc}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 y Expeditions, Inc.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 39 F.3d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1994)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In applying the facts of this case to the agency test,}{ \cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid2587192 \chftn }{\insrsid2587192 Although the Larsens}{\insrsid2587192\charrsid16202668 argue that the Superior Court ignored the \'93parent subsidiary principle,\'94 }{ \insrsid2587192 the Superior Court recognized the Larsen\rquote s argument. }{\insrsid2587192\charrsid16202668 Appellant\rquote s B}{\insrsid2587192 r. at 5. }{\insrsid2587192\charrsid4464251 The \'93parent subsidiary principle\'94 in most of the cases cited by the Larsens, and as analyzed by the Superior Court, parallel the guidelines set forth by the }{\insrsid2587192 a}{\insrsid2587192\charrsid4464251 gency test}{\insrsid2587192 . }{\i\insrsid2587192 See}{\insrsid2587192 RA tab 44 at 3.}{\insrsid2587192\charrsid16202668 }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 the Superior Court relied on the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 great-grand subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 relationship between the two entities.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 RA tab 44 at 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 It further relied on the freedom Hyatt Guam had to choose its management partner.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Upon these two grounds, the Superior Court rejected the proposition that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 but for the existence of [Hyatt of Guam Limited in Hong Kong], either [Hyatt International or] Hyatt Hotels would undertake the management of Hyatt Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 a.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Degree of Separation Between Entities is Not Controlling}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The fact that Hyatt Guam is a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 great-grand subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 of Defendants-Appellee s does not automatically mean that the agency test cannot be satisfied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Indeed, courts have applied the test to cases involving }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 sub}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 -subsidiaries.}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid2587192 \chftn }{\insrsid2587192 Although the cases cited pertain to sub-subsidiaries and not to a \'93sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-subsidiary\'94 as in this case, RA tab 44 at 2, the \'93level of control, direct[ion] and supervis[ion]\'94 is what many of these cases focus on regardless of whether the party at issue is a \'93subsidiary\'94 or a \'93sub-subsidiary.\'94 }{\i\insrsid2587192\charrsid14232315 See, e.g.}{\insrsid2587192 , }{\i\insrsid2587192 Bellomo v. Penn. Life Co.}{ \insrsid2587192\charrsid3043382 ,}{\insrsid2587192 488 F. Supp. 744, 745 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (addressing the \'93sub-subsidiary\'94 party as a \'93subsidiary\'94 throughout the opinion.); }{\i\insrsid2587192 see also }{\i\insrsid2587192\charrsid9270298 Riemer v. KSL Recreation Corp.}{\insrsid2587192 , 807 N.E.2d 1004, 1009 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (analyzing the degree of independence between the sub-subsidiary and the parent). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 See HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 530 (Ct. App. 2009) (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We conclude that specific personal jurisdiction over a parent company based on the activities of its subsidiary or sub-subsidiary is appropriate only if the parent purposefully directed those activities at this state.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Dev. Corp. of Palm Beach v. WBC Constr., L.L.C.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 925 So. 2d 1156, 1161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (applying the agency theory test to a sub-subsidiary); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Rotoli v. Domtar, Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 637 N.Y.S.2d 894}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (analyzing whether the sub-subsidiary was a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 mere department}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 of the parent even after the court acknowledged that it was unable to find a case where jurisdiction over a parent was determined on the basis of a sub-subsidiary}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s presence in the state).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The agency test, therefore, requires inquiry into the degree of control the parent exerts over the subsidiary and is not solely satisfied by the degree of separation between the parent and the subsidiary. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 b.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Superior Court Should Have Permitted Limited Jurisdictional D iscovery Before Applying the Agency Test \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Courts applying the agency test examine: (1) the importance of the subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s operations to the parent company; and (2) whether the parent corporation has the right to control the subsidiary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s operations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 See Unocal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 248 F.3d at 928-31. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [T]he purpose of examining sufficient importance is to determine whether the actions of the subsidiary can be understood as a manifestation of the parent}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s presence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 644 F.3d 909, 921 (9th Cir. 2011) .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 With respect to control, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 court asserted: }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [A] person may be an agent although the principal lacks the right to control the full range of the agent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s activities, how the agent uses time, or the agent}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s exercise of professional judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 A principal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s failure to exercise the right of control does not eliminate it, nor is it eliminated by physical distance between the agent and principal . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 923 (citing Restatement (Third) of Agency \'a7 1.01 cmt. c (2006)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 For example, in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , the Ninth Circuit refused to assert general jurisdiction over a French corporation because the corporation}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s relationship with its California subsidiaries did not satisfy the agency test.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 248 F.3d at 930-31.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 plaintiffs were Burmese citizens who brought suit as a class in federal district court in California, claiming that Total S.A. (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Total}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ), a French corporation, committed human rights violations in Burma.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 . at 920.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In applying the agency test, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 court first considered whether Total}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s California subsidiaries undertook actions sufficiently important to Total}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s business.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 . at 928.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The court dismissed the argument that because Total intended to expand its marketing network and produce higher value-added specialty products in the United States through its subsidiaries, its subsidiaries were acting as its agents.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 929.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The court stated this was insufficient to conclude that the French corporation would have performed the activities of its U.S. subsidiaries if they were unavailable.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Next, the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 court addressed whether Total controlled the day-to-day activities of its California companies.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 930.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 It concluded that although Total may indirectly control or supervise its subsidiaries, this was also not enough for the court to find the Californian subsidiaries acted as agents.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals engaged in a similar analysis in } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , a group of Argentinian residents brought suit against Mercedes Benz USA (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victims Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. \'a7 1350, alleging that its wholly-owned Argentinian subsidiary collaborated with state security forces to k idnap, detain, torture, and kill the plaintiffs or their relatives during Argentina}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Dirty War.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 644 F.3d at 911.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and plaintiffs appealed.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 . at 912.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The court concluded that MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s operations were sufficiently important to DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 DCAG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ) operations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 922.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 It cited to the fact that the United States accounted for nineteen percent of all sales of defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s Mercedes-Benz products, of which California accounted for 2.4% of defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s total worldwide sales.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Because selling Mercedes-Benz vehicles was a critical aspect of defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s business, the court stated that the services that the subsidiary of the defendant performs in California were sufficiently important to the defendant and that the defendant would have to engage another subsidiary if the current subsidiary did not perform its job.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 With regards to control, the Ninth Circuit court relied on the comprehensive written agreement between the parent and subsidiary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 It noted: }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 DCAG has the right to control nearly all aspects of MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s operations including: the number of vehicles that MBUSA must sell; the approval of MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s Authorized Resellers, as well as the location of each retail sales outlet, showroom and service facility; the dealership standards that MBUSA must comply with; the business systems that MBUSA uses; the type of customer information that MBUSA m ust collect; which management personnel are appointed to run MBUSA; which management personnel positions shall exist at MBUSA; the standards and requirements MBUSA must meet for vehicle servicing; whether MBUSA is required to establish a Service Coordinat ion Center, and if so, what tasks that Center will perform; the warranty terms applicable to MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s customers; whether MBUSA can alter or modify any vehicle; what technical service publications MBUSA shall have in its library; the content and scope of MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s advertising and marketing strategy; the type, design and size of MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s signs; the prices that MBUSA must pay to DCAG; the prices that MBUSA may charge to its Authorized Resellers; the working capital level and financing capability level that MBUSA mu st maintain; what other goods MBUSA may sell or manufacture; whether MBUSA must assist in vehicle homologation; and the sales numbers of various Authorized Resellers. If that exhaustive list were not enough, DCAG also has the right to require MBUSA to exe cute }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 any agreement relating to . . . any other matter related to this Agreement}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 in the form from time to time adopted by [DCAG]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 as long as those new Agreements are not an }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 unreasonable burden}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 on MBUSA. (emphasis added). MBUSA must comply with all of DCAG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s current requirements and all future requirements that may be set forth in any future document promulgated by DCAG. DCAG also receives notice about nearly all of MBUSA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s actions, including personnel changes, customer information, and marketing strategy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 at 924 (alterations in original).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Upon these facts, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 court found that the plaintiff established that the subsidiary was an agent for the parent and, therefore, the parent was subject to general jurisdiction in California.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 As }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 illustrate, the agency test requires the court to examine the nature of the parent corporation}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 s business relationship with its subsidiary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 T hat information is often exclusively in the possession of the defendant, in this case Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 See, e.g.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema a.s.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 361 F. Supp. 2d 49, 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Pre-motion discovery should also be permitted when the facts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction lie within the defendants exclusive knowledge.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 It is for this reason that many courts applying the agency test have permitted limited jurisdictional discovery before granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 . See, e.g.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bellomo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 488 F. Supp. at 744 (adjourning mo tion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with determination pending further discovery to reveal evidentiary facts regarding jurisdiction); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Mirrow v. Club Med. Inc}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 ., 118 F.R.D. 418, 419-20 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (affording plaintiff an opportunity for discovery to demonstrate a sufficient relationship between parent and subsidiary); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , 781 F. Supp. 1079, 1086 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (allowing sixty days for discovery on the limited issue concerning jurisdictional contacts).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 In }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 , the district court addressed the motions to quash service and dismissed only after it allowed the parties limited jurisdictional discovery regarding the agency relationship between parent and subsidiary and the availability of alternative fora.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 644 F.3d at 918.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We believe that the Superior Court should have proceeded in this manner.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We therefore remand this case for limited jurisdictional discovery on the agency relationship between the parent and subsidiary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 {\*\bkmkstart FN_FN5_}{\*\bkmkstart F00551980113580}{\*\bkmkend FN_FN5_} {\*\bkmkend F00551980113580}IV.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 CONCLUSION}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2587192 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par [23}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We hold that the Superior Court erred in relying entirely on the facts provided by Hyatt International and Hyatt Hotels.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 REVERSE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 and }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 REMAND}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 this case for limited jurisdictional discovery on the agency relationship between the parent and subsidiary.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 The subsequent Judgment dismissing the case is therefore }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 VACATED}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 We order the Superior Court to continue to analyze facts under the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Unocal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 test following the manner set forth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 Bauman.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2587192\charrsid2587192 \par }}