Petitioner developer sought review from the respondent, the Superior Court of Orange County (California), in which a writ of mandate was sought to review an order of respondent denying his motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction and stay or dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and a contractual forum selection clause based on Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 410.30, 418.10.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. counsels on LLC versus LP
Overview
Petitioner developer, resident of Michigan, entered into a business deal with real parties in interest, in which they would market a biochemical biopsy process he developed. After two years, the relationship between the parties deteriorated to the point where real parties in interest filed a complaint against petitioner in respondent court. Petitioner made a special appearance and moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction and to stay or dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and the contractual forum selection clause under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 410.30, 418.10. Respondent court denied his motions. The reviewing court let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent to stay the California action pending institution and final determination of an action against petitioner in Michigan, holding that engaging in economic activity within the state amounted to the requirement of purposeful activity. The court also held that the existence of a contractual forum selection clause required the court to decline jurisdiction under § 410.30 absent a showing that enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable.
Outcome
The court issued the peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to stay the California action pending institution and final determination of a action against petitioner developer in Michigan because developer had sufficient contacts with California to subject him to jurisdiction and the forum selection clause required the court to decline jurisdiction.