SANDOVAL v. DOE MACHINE MANUFACTURER
CASE NO.: BC570602
HEARING: 11/15/18
JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER
#1
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially appearing Defendant ATOM S.p.A.’s motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. CCP §410.10.
Moving Party to give Notice
Once a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Food, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.) To establish general jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that defendant’s contacts with the forum are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” (Id. at 445.) If a defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction, it may still be subject to specific jurisdiction if the plaintiff can show that the defendant (1) purposefully established contacts with the forum state, (2) the controversy is related to or “arises” out of a defendant’s contacts with the
Hearing Date
November 15, 2018
Type
Prdct Liablty (not asbes,tox,envir (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SANDOVAL v. DOE MACHINE MANUFACTURER
CASE NO.: BC570602
HEARING: 11/15/18
JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER
#1
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially appearing Defendant ATOM S.p.A.’s motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. CCP §410.10.
Moving Party to give Notice
Once a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Food, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.) To establish general jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that defendant’s contacts with the forum are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” (Id. at 445.) If a defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction, it may still be subject to specific jurisdiction if the plaintiff can show that the defendant (1) purposefully established contacts with the forum state, (2) the controversy is related to or “arises” out of a defendant’s contacts with the