Twinco Sales, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 1964 No. Civ. 22104Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a foreign corporation that lacks any contact with California, such as an office, agent, or sales activity, is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to quash service of summons was improper.

Issues

Whether a foreign corporation that ships goods to California at the direction of an out-of-state buyer is 'doing business' in California for purposes of substituted service.
Whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with no direct contacts in the forum state violates the due process clause.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Here, however, there is not even a single California contact by Twineo.”

“But in each of those eases there was some California contact, however minimal. Here there is none. Thus service of summons must be quashed”

DRAPER, P. J.

Petitioner (Twinco) seeks writ of mandate to compel respondent court to quash service of summons (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.3).

Twinco is a Minnesota corporation, with its principal office in St. Paul. It manufactured exercising devices, some of which it sold to S. S. Hollender, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois. Hollender sold 150 of these articles to real party in interest, Broadway-Hales Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation which operates retail stores in California. At Hollender’s direction, Twinco shipped them to California. Colleen Kinsler bought one from Broadway-Hales and sued that retailer in respondent court, alleging that she had been injured by reason of the negligent manufacture of the device and its unfitness for the purpose for which intended. Broadway-Hales cross-complained, seeking indemnity from Twinco, and obtained an order for substituted service. Summons and cross-complaint were then served on the Secretary of State, who in turn mailed copy to Twinco in St. Paul (Code Civ. Proc., § 411, subd. 2; Corp. Code, §§ 6501-6502). Twinco’s motion to quash was denied by the trial court.

Although the statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 411, subd. 2) permits substituted service upon a corporation only if it is “doing business in this State,” that term does not require repeated and successive transactions in California. Rather, it is a descriptive term, now “equated with such minimum contacts with the state ‘that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ’

(International Shoe Co.

Washington,

326 U.S. 310, 316 [66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057].)

[323]

Whatever limitation it imposes is equivalent to that of the due process clause. ’ ’

(Henry R. Jahn & Son

Superior Court,

49 Cal.2d 855, 858 [323 P.2d 437];

Fisher Governor Co.

Twinco Sales, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief