Hoerler v. Superior Court

Opinion

NEWSOM, J.

Petitioner seeks to compel respondent Superior Court of Santa Clara to vacate its denial of his motion to quash service of process upon him, arguing that he is not subject to in personam jurisdiction in California.

We issued a stay and an alternative writ of prohibition. No return to the alternative writ has been filed.

The trial court found that petitioner and real party in interest had been married and had children in California and lived in this state for 14 years prior to departing briefly for the State of Washington, where their marriage was dissolved, the real party then returning to California, and petitioner taking up residence in the State of Washington.

Respondent court found on these facts—quite correctly as we think—that the case then fell squarely within the ruling of

Kulko

v.

Superior Court

(1977) 19 Cal.3d 514 [138 Cal.Rptr. 586, 564 P.2d 353], in

[535]

which our Supreme Court concluded that a father with custody of his daughter who merely sent her to California to reside permanently with her mother had sufficient contacts with California to justify in personam jurisdiction. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court, in

Kulko

v.

California

(1978) 436 U.S. 84 [56 L.Ed.2d 132, 98 S.Ct. 1690] reversed the California

Kulko

decision, holding that the single act of a father returning his child to her mother in California was an insufficient basis for the asserted jurisdiction.

Petitioner cites

Judd

v.