The Hunts moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion based on a forum selection clause in the guaranty.
The Hunts petition this court for a writ of mandate, seeking reversal of the trial court's order. We issued an order to show cause and the parties waived oral argument. Janetter operates a hairstyling salon in Maryland. In May she shopped at a store in Maryland for equipment for the salon. She told the store owner, Mr. Gertler, that she would need financing to buy the equipment but was not optimistic she could qualify for a loan because the Small Business Administration had recently denied her request for a loan.
Gertler said he could arrange financing for her. Approximately one week later, Gertler sent Janetter a credit application, which she completed and returned. One day after she returned the credit application to Gertler, he contacted her and stated her application for credit had been approved.
Approximately two weeks later Jim, an employee of Gertler, delivered several financing documents to her. On several occasions during the following week, Jim and Gertler called Janetter at her Maryland salon to ask if she had signed the documents.
Jim then appeared at the salon to ask her for the signed documents. Janetter signed and delivered to Jim the lease and a guaranty signed by Janetter and Michael. CMC was the named lessor in the lease. The equipment was never delivered to Janetter. However, CMC telephoned Janetter to demand payment under the equipment financing lease. This telephone call was her first direct contact with CMC. Janetter told CMC she would not pay for equipment she never received. Several months later, this lawsuit ensued.
CMC opposed the motion by arguing that language in the guaranty constituted a forum selection agreement permitting California to assert personal jurisdiction over them. The court denied the Hunts' motion, and this petition for a writ of mandate followed. McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles 70 Cal. Our review is de novo because the facts are undisputed Hall v. LaRonde 56 Cal. Price 4 Cal.
California may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in a variety of circumstances. Procedure 4th ed. CMC relies on two principal bases for personal jurisdiction in this proceeding. Titus v. Superior Court 23 Cal. In addition, the calendar is easier to manage since the spreadsheets are accessible by multiple clerks.
Skip to main content Skip to topics menu Skip to topics menu. Cancel Print. If your case is filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court system, your judge is required to set an initial CMC no later than days after the filing of the complaint. Local Rule 3. However, most judges will schedule the initial CMC much earlier than that.
Attendance by counsel is mandatory and failure to appear can result in monetary sanctions or even dismissal of the case. First, the parties, through their counsel, are required to meet in person or by phone no later than 30 days prior to the CMC to discuss the topics listed in CRC 3. The following is a brief summary of some issues that should be discussed:.
Check your local rules for due dates. This form includes all the information the judge needs to know in order to properly conduct the CMC. The Case Management Statement contains 20 questions and each question must be answered. Many of the questions deal with whether or not the parties have accomplished required tasks like filing proofs of service, serving or responding to discovery, and whether the parties have met and conferred in advance of the CMC.
A trial date may be set at the first CMC. Trial counsel and back up trial counsel must be specified at the CMC. If such counsel is not identified, relief from the scheduled trial date may not be based on the ground that counsel is engaged elsewhere. At the CMC, you may expect the judge to make appropriate pre-trial orders on any of the following matters:.
0コメント