Defendant petitioned for a writ of prohibition (treated as a writ of mandate) against the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) to prevent further proceedings against him in an action for dog-bite injuries, on grounds that California lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
Nakase Law Firm answers can I sue my employer for not giving me lunch break in California
Overview
Defendant, a domiciliary of Arizona but a domiciliary of California at the time of the alleged tort, moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant had been personally served in Arizona. The lower court found it had jurisdiction over defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed. Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 417, California could acquire jurisdiction over defendant if he was personally served with summons and the cause of action arose while he was a domiciliary of the state. Both requirements were satisfied. Section 417 also satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. Although § 417 was enacted after the action was filed, plaintiff could rely on it because it was merely procedural and did not deprive defendant of a defense on the merits or create a new cause of action.
Outcome
The court discharged the alternative writ and denied the peremptory writ because the lower court had personal jurisdiction over defendant inasmuch as he was personally served with summons in Arizona and the cause of action arose in California.