SHERRI M. OKAMOTO - Metropolitan News-Enterprise - December 22, 2011
A Canadian corporation cannot be sued in this state for injuries caused by an exploding jet ski on the California side of Lake Havasu, the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.
Div. One yesterday ordered published its Nov. 30 decision holding that the placement of a product into the stream of commerce in a foreign country, with the knowledge that it may be swept into California, is not enough to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction here.
The defendant, Dow Chemical Canada ULC, was the successor-in-interest to the Canadian corporation which had manufactured the allegedly defective fuel tank for the Sea-Doo GSX watercraft which blew up in August 2008. The nine plaintiffs, all California residents, alleged that they were injured as a result.
After being served with the complaint, Dow appeared specially and moved to quash service of the summons on the ground that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with California to justify the state’s assertion of personal jurisdiction.
Read the rest of the story here:
C.A. Rejects Suit Against Canadian Firm Over Exploding Jet Ski
Showing posts with label jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jurisdiction. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Jones Day - lexology.com
Meir Feder and Eric E. Murphy - July 1 2011
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important decisions limiting state courts' personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76 (U.S. June 27, 2011), and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (U.S. June 27, 2011). The Court addressed the two basic categories of personal jurisdiction—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction—and endorsed narrower limits on both than have been applied by many lower courts. The general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear, significantly clarified what has been a murky legal standard, and did so in a way that presents significant new opportunities for corporations to avoid jurisdiction in improper forums. In the specific jurisdiction case, McIntyre, the Court's inability to agree on a majority opinion injected additional confusion into an already unsettled area.
Read the rest of the story here:
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Meir Feder and Eric E. Murphy - July 1 2011
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important decisions limiting state courts' personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76 (U.S. June 27, 2011), and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09-1343 (U.S. June 27, 2011). The Court addressed the two basic categories of personal jurisdiction—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction—and endorsed narrower limits on both than have been applied by many lower courts. The general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear, significantly clarified what has been a murky legal standard, and did so in a way that presents significant new opportunities for corporations to avoid jurisdiction in improper forums. In the specific jurisdiction case, McIntyre, the Court's inability to agree on a majority opinion injected additional confusion into an already unsettled area.
Read the rest of the story here:
Supreme Court limits personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
Friday, December 31, 2010
Substitute service of process ordered for defendant from Russian Federation
Lexology - 12/31/10
Judges: Rader (author), Newman, Prost
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge White]
In Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, No. 10-1100 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Abbyy Production LLC (“Abbyy Production”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. To allow for additional discovery, the Court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of Abbyy Software, Ltd. (“Abbyy Software”). The Court also reversed the dismissal of the case for improper service of process.
Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) originally sued Abbyy USA Software House (“Abbyy USA”) and Lexmark International, Inc. for infringement of its method and system patents directed to optical character recognition, and document recognition and management. Based on responses to interrogatories, Nuance filed an Amended Complaint, adding as defendants Abbyy Software, Abbyy USA’s parent, and Abbyy Production, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbyy Software and the provider of Abbyy USA’s software products and support. Abbyy Software and Abbyy Production are corporations organized under the laws of Cyprus and Russia, respectively. A local process server served Abbyy Production in Moscow with the Amended Complaint, Amended Summons, and Standing Orders of the Court. The Abbyy defendants then filed a motion to dismiss Abbyy Production and Abbyy Software for lack of personal jurisdiction, and to dismiss Abbyy Production for improper service of process. The district court concluded that the record did not show that Abbyy Production or Abbyy Software purposefully directed any specific activity at residents of California or within the forum state, or that Nuance’s claims arise out of those activities. The district court further concluded that Nuance did not properly serve Abbyy Production in accordance with the Hague Convention. The district court also dismissed the suit against Abbyy Software sua sponte for improper service of process. In its decisions, the district court did not address Nuance’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
Read the rest of the story:
Substitute service of process ordered for defendant from Russian Federation
Judges: Rader (author), Newman, Prost
[Appealed from N.D. Cal., Judge White]
In Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, No. 10-1100 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Abbyy Production LLC (“Abbyy Production”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. To allow for additional discovery, the Court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of Abbyy Software, Ltd. (“Abbyy Software”). The Court also reversed the dismissal of the case for improper service of process.
Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) originally sued Abbyy USA Software House (“Abbyy USA”) and Lexmark International, Inc. for infringement of its method and system patents directed to optical character recognition, and document recognition and management. Based on responses to interrogatories, Nuance filed an Amended Complaint, adding as defendants Abbyy Software, Abbyy USA’s parent, and Abbyy Production, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbyy Software and the provider of Abbyy USA’s software products and support. Abbyy Software and Abbyy Production are corporations organized under the laws of Cyprus and Russia, respectively. A local process server served Abbyy Production in Moscow with the Amended Complaint, Amended Summons, and Standing Orders of the Court. The Abbyy defendants then filed a motion to dismiss Abbyy Production and Abbyy Software for lack of personal jurisdiction, and to dismiss Abbyy Production for improper service of process. The district court concluded that the record did not show that Abbyy Production or Abbyy Software purposefully directed any specific activity at residents of California or within the forum state, or that Nuance’s claims arise out of those activities. The district court further concluded that Nuance did not properly serve Abbyy Production in accordance with the Hague Convention. The district court also dismissed the suit against Abbyy Software sua sponte for improper service of process. In its decisions, the district court did not address Nuance’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
Read the rest of the story:
Substitute service of process ordered for defendant from Russian Federation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)