Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission
This unopposed application is granted subject to the following:
1.
prior to the hearing, the moving party must file a new proof of service showing service on the California State Bar;
2.
prior to the hearing the moving party must file with the court a receipt showing payment of the state bar fee (See CRC 9.40(e)).
Motion to Quash Service of Summons
As to Corporate Defendant GAEMS Inc.
The corporate Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
A contract with an out-of-state party does not automatically establish purposeful availment in the other party's home forum. Rather, a court must evaluate the contract terms and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum. Relevant factors include prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the parties' course of dealings, and the contract's choice-of-law provision. (Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. 462, 478; Stone v. State of Tex. (1999) 7
Hearing Date
October 05, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission
This unopposed application is granted subject to the following:
1.
prior to the hearing, the moving party must file a new proof of service showing service on the California State Bar;
2.
prior to the hearing the moving party must file with the court a receipt showing payment of the state bar fee (See CRC 9.40(e)).
Motion to Quash Service of Summons
As to Corporate Defendant GAEMS Inc.
The corporate Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
A contract with an out-of-state party does not automatically establish purposeful availment in the other party's home forum. Rather, a court must evaluate the contract terms and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum. Relevant factors include prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the parties' course of dealings, and the contract's choice-of-law provision. (Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. 462, 478; Stone v. State of Tex. (1999) 7