Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault v. SUPERIOR CT. OF SACRAMENTO CTY.

THE COURT.

By mandate, petitioner seeks an order of this court compelling the Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento to set aside and vacate its order denying petitioner’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint

[703]

on petitioner. This court issued its order to show cause and the matter was set for oral argument.

After full consideration of the petition, the points and authorities, and the arguments of respective counsel, we are satisfied that the memorandum opinion filed by the Honorable Leonard M. Friedman denying a like motion correctly states the law and we therefore adopt the same as the opinion of this court.

“The court has concluded that defendant Regie Nationals des Usines Renault, Billancourt (Seine), France (hereinafter referred to elliptieally as ‘Regie’) has had adequate contacts with California and California residents so that the maintenance of the suit against it does not offend our notions of fair play and substantial justice

(International Shoe Co.

v.

Washington,

326 U.S. 310 [66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057]). It is, in other words, 'doing business’ in California and is amenable to substituted service of process on the Secretary of State in the manner provided by Section 6501-6502 of the Corporations Code.

“Defendant Regie is a business entity owned by the French government. As an automobile manufacturer, it inaugurates a flow of its products to the California market. It sells its products to defendant Renault, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in the State of New York. Renault, in turn, sells to various American distributors, who in turn sell to retail dealers. There is a chain of sales leading from defendant Regie to California consumers. The product is such that negligence in manufacture and inspection might well cause injury to California citizens, as is alleged by the plaintiff and by the cross-complainant here.

“Regie might' choose to arrange its marketing process through a hierarchy of its own agents and employees. Then, by establishing agents in California to sell its products, it would undoubtedly be amenable to suit in this state. For reasons of its own it chooses to market its products through a wholly-owned American subsidiary and a network of independently-owned distributorships and dealerships. These choices on its part effect little, if any, alteration in the jurisdictional situation. The ‘contacts’ exist one way or the other and for precisely the same purposes. The differences are differences only in form and description.