Plaintiff sued defendant for a sexual assault which occurred during a business trip to Florida in 2022. Plaintiff was a Colorado resident but was CEO of a California corporation in which defendant’s venture capital firm had made a large investment. The decision holds that defendant was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California because all the events regarding the sexual assault occurred in Florida. That was true even if the parties’ prior dealings in California set up the power imbalance which made the later sexual assault possible. Power imbalances are common and don’t necessarily lead to sexual assaults. However, the trial court erred in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery regarding general jurisdiction and that defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction because he had moved to Florida which became his new domicile the same month as the assault. Though it may be the exceptional case in which a defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in a place other than his domicile, this might be such a case. Defendant had been domiciled in California up to the month in which the assault occurred. He had a vacation home in California that he used around the time of the assault and continuing business relationships in California thereafter. The decision also suggests that while specific jurisdiction should be judged at the time the claim accrues, general jurisdiction might be assessed at the time suit is filed or served.