What is the test for establishing personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant?

"A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) `the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits' [citation]; (2) `the "controversy is related to or `arises out of' [the] defendant's contacts with the forum"' [citations]; and (3) `"the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with `fair play and substantial justice'"' [citations]." (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)

"Where the evidence of jurisdictional facts is not in conflict, we independently review the trial court's decision. [Citation.] To the extent there are conflicts in the evidence, we must resolve them in favor of the prevailing party and the trial court's order. [Citation.]" (Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436.) The only evidence in the record is the declaration of Carlisle and thus we review the motion de novo.

Plaintiff claims defendant did not have enough evidence to support her motion to quash but instead actually showed enough minimum contacts with this state to validate jurisdiction. But even though defendant filed the motion, plaintiff must show there are minimum contacts. "When a defendant moves the trial court to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that sufficient contacts exist between the defendant and California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] If that burden is met, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the assumption of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. [Citation.]" (Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1435-1436.)