HOLDINGS: [1]-A corporate defendant’s sales of defective medical gowns in California were insufficiently connected to the specific claim in this lawsuit, namely whether a distribution agreement’s indemnity obligation was enforceable. Personal jurisdiction therefore could not be had insofar as plaintiff relied on the gown sales as the relevant purposeful availment; [2]-The distribution agreement was not a “California-directed” contract conferring personal jurisdiction over defendant. Defendant wanted assurance that liability arising from the acts of its former healthcare division would be compensated wherever it might arise and there was no particular focus on California over any other litigation forum. The constitutionally required minimum contacts between the forum and the litigation as to this specific dispute were lacking. Parties’ San Diego litigation attorney appeal.
Outcome
The trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-A trial court was without authority to rule defendant’s pending discovery motions or to impose sanctions because the litigation should have been stayed under Code Civ. Proc., § 391.6, after defendant filed its motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1, to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and to require him to furnish security.
Outcome
Orders imposing discovery sanctions reversed.
