 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newman v. VRL International5/16/2005
o quash in the Cuenllas action: "`Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, this court lacks general or specific jurisdiction over [respondent], a Cayman Island corporation. Any purported advertising by [respondent] and/or International Lifestyles is insufficient as a matter of law and does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts. There is no substantial nexus between plaintiff's injuries and the purported advertising. The advertising does not operate to confer jurisdiction over [respondent] for the injuries suffered by plaintiff in the course of recreational activities occurring wholly outside the United States.'" In an unpublished portion of our opinion, we affirmed the trial court's ruling. (Cuenllas v. VRL International, Ltd. (Oct. 11, 2004, B138624) [nonpub. opn.].)
This action was filed by appellant on February 13, 2003, naming respondent and International Lifestyles as defendants. Causes of action for breach of contract and common counts are alleged. The Fifth Cause of Action for breach of contract, alleged against respondent, states: "That defendant authorized, permitted, allowed and accepted plaintiff law firm to be its attorney of record and to represent and defend defendant in a civil action on file in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 196 681. Plaintiff law firm continuously defended said defendant in said civil action and defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value of such services as were necessary to defend said defendant. [ ] . . . On or about December, 2001, and continuing thereafter, defendant breached the agreement by . . . ailing to pay for the legal services necessarily performed as attorney of record in the defense of the civil action, Case No. BC 196 681, Los Angeles Superior Court . . . . [ ] . . . Plaintiff suffered damages legally (proximately) caused by defendant's breach of the agreement . . . as follows . . . : Legal services performed for [respondent], as client, in the amount of Seventy-One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Six dollars ($71,766.00)."
Respondent filed a motion to quash service of process in this action along with a request that the court take judicial notice of the minute order granting its motion to quash in Cuenllas and our opinion affirming the trial court in that same action. The motion was also supported by the declaration of respondent's Senior Vice President, Cameron Burnet, addressing the same factors relevant to the issue of general jurisdiction he addressed in the Cuenllas motion to quash.
Appellant's opposition to the motion to quash conceded there are insufficient contacts between respondent and California to establish general jurisdiction. It argued that specific jurisdiction existed for the claims being made: "As to the second defendant, [respondent], California Courts have specific jurisdiction as to that Defendant for purposes of this lawsuit. That company [respondent] utilized the services of plaintiff, California lawyers, to enable it to defend its position that it should not have to litigate the multimillion dollar Cuenllas case here. The personal injury subject of the Cuenllas lawsuit occurred in the Bahamas at [respondent's] Breezes Hotel. [Respondent] spent years fighting before the Superior Court of California and then before the California Court of Appeal to avoid the exposure of litigating that case here."
After argument, the trial court ruled: "1. The Motion of [respondent], is GRANTED on the basis of the finding and holding of the Court of Appeal in the underlying Cue llas action, as well as the doctrine of judicial estoppel and [respondent's] Opposing Brief." A notice of appeal was timely filed by appellant.
DISCUSSION
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|