..........Cases and Materials on California Civil Procedure, 3d ed. (ThomsonWest 2008) All Rights Reserved

................................................Chapter 2: Jurisdiction, Venue, Conflicts

..........................................................

A. Subject Matter Jurisdicti A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdictional Classifications
p. 46, new Note 10: If a plaintiff files her action as an unlimited civil case, but she recovers a judgment within the jurisdiction of a limited civil case, the Superior Court may, in its discretion, deny an award of costs (including attorney's fees) to the plaintiff. CCP § 1033(a). This consequence is intended to encourage plaintiffs to classify their actions appropriately and not exaggerate the value of their claims. However, section 1033 does not apply to statutory discrimination or civil rights claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). A prevailing FEHA plaintiff in an unlimited civil case is entitled to recover attorney's fees as a matter of right, even though the recovery was within the jurisdictional range of a limited civil case. See Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 160 Cal.App.4th 410, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 783, review granted and opinion superseded, 2008 WL 2152191 (2008). (See also Chapter 7, p. 821, new Note 6.)

.........................................B. Jurisdiction Over Persons
1. Bases of Personal Jurisdiction
p. 57, Note 2, new second paragraph: Recall the Edible Widgets Hypothetical in Chapter 1, Section E. After Paul completely recovered from his Edible Widgets mishap, he resumed his law studies. Paul is a stellar student, and his performance came to the attention of the University of Virginia law school. The university sent one of its most renowned professors to California to convince Paul to transfer. Over the course of two visits, the professor offered Paul a full scholarship and a spot on the law review. Paul executed the enrollment agreement in California and moved to Virginia. At Virginia, Paul lived with a roommate, Biff. Paul and Biff went out drinking one night, and they engaged in a drunken brawl. Paul fell from a train trestle and sustained severe brain injuries. Paul has sued the university for his injuries in a California Superior Court. The university has moved to quash service of summons on the ground that the court does not have specific jurisdiction over it. Under the three-pronged specific jurisdiction analysis in Snowney, how is the court likely to rule? Roman v. Liberty University, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 (2008).

p. 59, new Note 10: A judgment that has been properly renewed will not be vacated on the ground that the defendant did not have minimum contacts with California at the time of the renewal. As long as a trial court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant at the time of service of summons, the court's jurisdiction continues throughout all subsequent proceedings, including renewal of the judgment. Goldman v. Simpson, 160 Cal.App.4th 255, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 729 (2008); see also The Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Fiscus, ___Cal.App.4th ___, ___Cal.Rptr.3d___ (2008) [2008 WL 2388899] (if a defendant had minimum contacts with California in an original action, those contacts are sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in a subsequent independent action to revive the original judgment).

2. Service of Process
p. 72, Note 8, after parenthetical following In re Alyssa F. cite: In re Jorge G., ___Cal.App.4th ___, ___Cal.Rptr.3d___ (2008) [2008 WL 2133132] (service on foreign residents that does not conform to Hague Service Convention procedures renders all subsequent proceedings void, even if actual notice was received).

........................................................................C. Venue
2. Forum Non Conveniens
p. 98, end of Note 1: In some cases, a dismissal may be appropriate. If a California plaintiff whose California action has been stayed failed to exercise reasonable diligence in prosecuting the action in the foreign forum, the Superior Court may order a discretionary dismissal based on its evaluation of the factors set out in CRC 3.1342(e). "California's interest in assuring an adequate forum for a California plaintiff is not absolute, and can be overcome when the plaintiff is unreasonably dilatory in prosecuting the action in the convenient forum." Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 130, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 471, 477 (2008). (See Chapter 5(D)(2) for information on diligent prosecution.)

. .............................................................D. Conflict of Laws
1. Introduction
p. 105, bottom of page: See also Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007: Twenty-First Annual Survey, 56 Am.J.Comp.L. 243 (2008).

2. Tort Actions
p. 117, Note 1, new second paragraph: If the existence of a true conflict is difficult to discern, the trial court may assume, arguendo, that each state has a legitimate interest in the application of its law so that it may proceed to the third prong of the governmental interest test: the comparative impairment analysis. In McCann v. Foster Wheeler, 160 Cal.App.4th 689, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, review granted and opinion superseded, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146 (2008), the Court of Appeal expressed doubt about whether a true conflict existed because it was not convinced that Oklahoma had an interest in the application of its law. However, the court progressed to the comparative impairment analysis and determined that California's interest in providing a remedy to a state resident for a cause of action that accrued in California would be more significantly impaired than would Oklahoma's supposed interest if its statute of repose were not applied.

 

 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved for future use
...............................................A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Federal and State Court Comparison

............................................................B. Jurisdiction Over Persons

.........................................................................C. Venue

.......................................................................D. Conflict of Laws
2. Tort Actions
3. Contract Actions

.