Seagate Technology v. Goel CA4/3

Filed 8/19/22 Seagate Technology v. Goel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G060036

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CV328929)

VIKAS GOEL, OPI NION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara, Sunil R. Kulkarni, Judge. Reversed. McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Elizabeth Pipkin, Matthew Schechter, and Johanna Oh for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick, Michael von Loewenfeldt and Frank Busch for Defendant and Respondent.

This appeal concerns a single legal question: Can private parties validly contract for a method of service of process in a foreign country, when the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (Hague Service Convention) provides for a different method of service. In this case the trial court, relying on an appellate court decision that was being reviewed by the Supreme Court, determined Seagate Technology LLC’s (Seagate) service by registered mail on Vikas Goel in India did not comport with the Hague Service Convention. It granted Goel’s motion to dismiss on the grounds he was not properly served and he was not subject to California jurisdiction. While Seagate’s appeal of this ruling was pending, our Supreme Court overturned the single appellate case supporting the trial court’s decision to grant Goel’s motion to quash. Our Supreme Court determined that when parties have agreed to waive formal service of process under California law in favor of informal notification, the Hague Service Convention’s requirements for service of process abroad do not apply. (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 145 (Rockefeller).) The following year, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting that this court stay the appeal pending the outcome of their trial scheduled to begin in May 2021. The stipulation noted Seagate believed trial and any resulting judgment “may moot the instant appeal” and Goel maintained “the instant appeal is already moot.” In early February 2022, we dissolved the stay and requested supplemental briefing on the mootness issue because the parties indicated the trial court proceedings were nearly completed. Goel did not file supplemental briefing. Seagate filed a letter acknowledging the issue was likely moot because the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting the motion to quash, Seagate served Goel a second time, the court held a bench trial, and it entered a judgment in favor of Seagate in August 2021. Despite all this, Seagate did not