 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newman v. VRL International5/16/2005
t position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake." (Jackson, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 183, italics added.)
Because appellant's argument for specific jurisdiction is based on a different claim and different facts, it is not inconsistent with the argument it made on behalf of respondent in the Cuenllas action. The trial court erred in relying on the concept of judicial estoppel.
Because we may affirm a trial court even if its rationale was wrong (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980-981), we now address the merits of the motion to quash.
"When no conflict in the evidence exists, . . . the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law and the reviewing court engages in an independent review of the record. [Citation.]" (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)
We review the case of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease v. Ryan (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 91, a case similar to ours. There, an Ohio law firm, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease (Vorys), was retained by a California law firm to represent its California clients, identified in the Court of Appeal opinion as Ryans, to intervene in a legal matter pending in Ohio. Vorys represented Ryans but Ryans was dissatisfied with Vorys over the fee it was charged for making an unsuccessful motion. Jeffrey Ryan, one of the clients, then went to Ohio and arranged a settlement of the suit. But he felt the papers prepared by Vorys were defective. Ryans refused to pay Vorys for the legal work it had performed. Vorys obtained a default judgment against Ryans in Ohio and then came to California and obtained a California judgment. Ryans moved to vacate the California judgment contending Ohio lacked personal jurisdiction to render the original judgment. The motion was denied and Ryans appealed contending the Ohio court had no personal jurisdiction over them. The Court of Appeal disagreed:
"A defendant in an action to enforce a foreign judgment is permitted to show `that the foreign judgment is in excess of jurisdiction,' except when the jurisdiction issue was expressly litigated in the foreign state. [Citation.] Vorys won a default judgment without the Ohio court ever hearing a challenge to jurisdiction.
"Ohio's long-arm statute allows service of process on a nonresident `who, acting directly or by an agent, has caused an event to occur out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose, from the person's: (1) Transacting any business in this state. . . .' [Citation.] California's long-arm statute contemplates a similar exercise of jurisdiction. [Citation.] Courts have interpreted subsection (1) of the Ohio statute as extending personal jurisdiction to its constitutional limits. [Citations.] The federal constitutional standard for a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party is that the party must have `certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."' [Citations.]
"A three-part test has been used to determine when a defendant has `minimum contacts' with a foreign state. `First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant's activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the
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.
|
|