 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newman v. VRL International5/16/2005
Such a defendant's contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction. [Citation.] [ ] If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [citation], and the `controversy is related to or "arises out of" a defendant's contacts with the forum.' [Citations]." (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445-446.)
In Cuenllas, we addressed both concepts. "Addressing the issue of specific jurisdiction first, we find none. The controversy at issue is a claim for damages for injuries resulting from a jet ski accident which occurred in the Caribbean ocean. While it is true that appellant's visit to the Breezes resort may have resulted from marketing activity as next discussed, there is no evidence of any nexus between the accident and the marketing activity. We cannot conclude that the controversy presented is either related to or arises out of any of respondent's contacts with California." (Cuenllas v. VRL International, Ltd., supra, [nonpub. opn.], p. 9.) We then turned to the concept of general jurisdiction which was argued by Cuenllas to be applicable based on marketing activity within the United States and California: "We cannot conclude that this activity is so `"substantial . . . continuous and systematic" . . . [that respondent's] contacts with [this] forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 10-11.)
Addressing this case, appellant is not arguing that general jurisdiction exists. Arguably, without new evidence, the ruling on this issue would preclude appellant from prevailing on such a claim. Appellant contends that specific jurisdiction exists for this action because the claim asserted here arises directly from respondent's retention of appellant to represent it in the Cuenllas action, not the same claim addressed in Cuenllas. There, the issue of specific jurisdiction was analyzed in the context of a personal injury claim arising from a jet ski accident in the Bahamas. Thus, while we are called upon to decide whether specific jurisdiction exists in this case, a similar issue addressed in the Cuenllas case, the issue here is informed by a different legal claim and facts not before the court in Cuenllas. Thus, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel are applicable.
"Judicial estoppel, sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, prevents a party from `asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding. The doctrine serves a clear purpose: to protect the integrity of the judicial process.'" (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2005 supp.) Judgment, ยง 284A, p. 246, quoting Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181 (Jackson).) It is intended to prevent litigants from "`playing "fast and loose with the courts." [Citation.]'" (Jackson, supra, at p. 181.) It is an "`extraordinary remed to be invoked when a party's inconsistent behavior will otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice.' [Citation.]" (Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co. (3rd Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 355, 365.)
Under California law, judicial estoppel applies when "(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the firs
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.
|
|