Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. CA2/3

Filed 1/20/21 Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GEORGE SWEIKHART, et al., B305065

Plaintiffs and Appellants, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 19STCV26549 AKEBONO BRAKE INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Reversed. Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi, Tyler Stock; Bartlett Barrow and Brian P. Barrow for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Tracy D. Forbath, Florence A. McClain, and Lesa M. Meyers for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

The Hague Convention, which the United States has adopted, governs service of process in international civil disputes. But states may enact more liberal service rules—and California has. Under California law, plaintiffs may serve a foreign corporation through its “general manager in this state” (Corp. Code,1 § 2110; Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10), a term courts have construed to include domestic corporate subsidiaries. Plaintiffs and appellants George and Christina Sweikhart sued defendant and respondent Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. (ABIC), a Japanese company. Instead of serving the summons and complaint under Hague Convention procedures, however, the Sweikharts delivered the papers to the designated agent for service of process in California for ABIC’s wholly-owned American subsidiary, Akebono Brake Corporation (Akebono). On appeal from the trial court’s order granting ABIC’s motion to quash, the Sweikharts argue that they were not required to comply with Hague Convention procedures because Akebono is ABIC’s “general manager” under California law. We agree. Because the Sweikharts satisfied California’s service rules, service on ABIC was proper, and the court erred in granting the motion to quash. We therefore reverse.