Defendant nonresident sought a writ of mandate against respondent trial court (California), which denied defendant’s motions to quash service of summons on him for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss plaintiff companion’s action against him for inconvenience of forum.

Nakase Law Firm is a trial lawyer

Overview

Respondent trial court denied defendant nonresident’s motions to quash service of summons on him in Florida for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss plaintiff companion’s action against him in California for inconvenience of forum. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent to vacate its orders and to enter a new and different order granting both motions. The court determined that California had no general jurisdiction over defendant. Defendant’s activity within the state bore no resemblance to the wide-ranging and systematic activity that constituted the basis for general jurisdiction. The court concluded that the nature and quality of defendant’s activity in California was insufficient to confer limited jurisdiction on California courts to entertain plaintiff’s claim by process served in Florida. The court also concluded that the doctrine of inconvenient forum applied because the action would be most conveniently tried in a Florida forum and that the California action should be dismissed.

Outcome

The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent trial court to vacate its orders denying defendant nonresident’s motions to quash service for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss plaintiff companion’s cause for inconvenience of forum, and enter an order granting both motions. Defendant’s activity within the state did not constitute the basis for general jurisdiction and did not confer limited jurisdiction on California courts.