Floyd J. Harkness Co. v. Habermann

California Court of Appeal Jul 30, 1976 No. Civ. 2586Published

Before: Brown (g.A.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's limited contacts with California were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, as they did not demonstrate purposeful activity intended to invoke the benefits and protections of California law.

Issues

Whether the defendant's limited contacts with California were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction for a suit involving promissory notes executed in Mexico and Arizona.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“do not elevate the relationship with California to a constitutionally permissible level for the exercise of jurisdiction.”

Opinion

BROWN (G. A.), P. J.

Plaintiff, a California corporation with principal place of business in Fresno County, appeals from an order granting the motion of defendant, Gustavo Habermann, to quash service of summons on the defendant. The summons was served in the country of Mexico.

The essential facts are not in substantial dispute. Any conflicts that may exist, however, are resolved in favor of the prevailing, party and the trial court’s order.

(Tiffany Records, Inc.

M. B. Krupp Distributors, Inc.

(1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 610, 615 [81 Cal.Rptr. 320].)

From the affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, it appears that the defendant is a citizen and resident of the country of Mexico and that he is not authorized to nor has he conducted business in California. He has owned no property in California and has no agent here.

Pursuant to the terms of written contracts between the parties executed in the summers of 1971 and 1972, the defendant signed in Mexico and delivered to plaintiff’s representative in Nogales, Arizona, 13 promissory notes. The amount due upon the notes is alleged to be $214,400.73 plus interest. These notes were payable to the plaintiff in Fresno, California. The complaint herein is for the alleged nonpayment of those promissory notes and upon the theory of an account stated in the same amount.

Except for the substitution of the defendant Habermann and appropriate changes in the amounts and number of advances and the number of promissory notes and the amounts due thereon, the terms of the promissory notes and of the underlying written contracts between the plaintiff and defendant were identical to those entered into between the plaintiff and one Eduardo Amezcua. Today we have filed our opinion in

Floyd J. Harkness Co.

Amezcua, ante,

p. 687, [131 Cal.Rptr. 667]. The issues raised by these proceedings are identical to those raised in the

Amezcua

case, and the comments and conclusions therein are equally applicable to and dispositive of the issues herein.

Floyd J. Harkness Co. v. Habermann

AI Brief

BROWN (G. A.), P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief