In a case with facts closely similar to Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, the court follows that decision in holding that Daimler was subject to personal jurisdiction in California even though Daimler had not sold the truck involved in the accident in this state nor did the accident occur here. Daimler purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of California law by extensively advertising its trucks, including the model involved in the accident in California, maintaining dealerships in California to sell the trucks and the like. As in the Ford case, the plaintiff’s claim was “related to,” even if not caused by, Daimler’s contacts with California. That was true even though the accident occurred outside California. The plaintiff was a California resident and suffered most of his damages, including medical treatment, in California. Assertion of California jurisdiction to protect its citizens was reasonable particularly given the extent of Daimler’s California business.