M&S Lawyers Obtain Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction In California for Pennsylvania Residents
What the Case Involved: Marks & Sokolov successfully represented Janet Conway, Michael Conway, and Merchant Risk, Recovery, Research and Intelligence, Inc. in obtaining an order quashing service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.
Marks & Sokolov argued that the claims of the Plaintiff Philippine corporation against the Defendant Pennsylvania residents related to business transactions in the Philippines should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Marks & Sokolov further showed that in order to create an appearance of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff fraudulently inserted documents into unrelated business transactions that purportedly evidenced Defendants engaged in California transactions.
Result: Following discovery and a detailed examination of the facts, Judge Bruguera quashed the service of summons and dismissed the case. The Court concluded that it would be improper to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendants, who transacted no relevant business in California or directed any activities at California. The Court further concluded that it had no specific jurisdiction over Defendants because: (1) they had not purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of California; (2) the claims did not arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts with California; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants by a California court would be unreasonable. The Court found that the Plaintiff proffered “no competent evidence” that jurisdiction would “comport with fair place and substantial justice.”
Bruce S. Marks and Tom Sullivan served as lead counsel for the Defendants.
John A. West, Jr. v. Premier Payments Online, LLC