PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Jurisdiction & Venue
......Personal Jurisdiction
.........Bases
............Appearance/Consent
10 Cards On This Topic:

Magistrate judge had jurisdiction over non-party corp. officer where named parties served as his virtual representatives re consenting to jurisdiction—when they consented to be bound by orders, they spoke for him as well.

Summons should have been quashed for lack of personal jurisdiction over PA company in CA—trial court improperly conflated venue, forum, and jurisdiction to imply D's consent to jurisdiction.

Ds not deemed to have generally appeared by serving 998 offer where they filed motion to quash under CCP 418.10(e)(1) ••before•• serving 998 offer.

As Pet. consented to CA jurisdiction through settlement agrmt and court-appointed administrator, he had sufficient minimum contacts to support specific jurisdiction in administrator's payment action.

Where two cases clearly related, foreign company's act of bringing 1st action acted as a consent to the jurisdiction of CA courts over 2d action which was brought against it.

By filing answer and participating in litigation, Ds submitted to Cal. jurisdiction and motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction properly denied.

Ds' motion to quash on jurisdict'l grounds to be dismissed where they sought atty fees as prevailing parties in interpleader after court dismissed on grounds unrelated to personal jurisdiction, thereby submitting to jurisdiction.

Although Ds not properly named nor served, they subjected themselves to court's personal jurisdiction and became parties by making general appearance.

Superior court had personal jurisdiction over P, who commenced arbitration; service of D's discovery motions on her attorney proper under CCP.

Attorney consented to submit himself to personal jurisdiction in California in malpractice action by previously filing atty fee action arising from same general transaction.