Froogle V. Mary Ccp 410.10
Relevant Facts
Our Client, Froogle (“Froogle”) has retained our firm to file suit againt Mary, a small manufacturer and retailer of downhill snow skis. Froogle and Mary signed an agreement in January of 2012. On or about March 15, 2012 Froogle discovered that Mary had breached several of the terms of their agreement. We filed suit in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California on behalf of Froogle on May 31,2012. Mary, a resident of Vermont, responded by filing a motion for non-conveniens claiming that because her business and residence are in Vermont, California has no jurisdiction over her. Mary violated the terms of her agreement and should be brought to answer for her actions in a California court of law, as Froogle’s main place of business is Salinas, California.
Issue Presented
The issue is whether or not Froogle has jurisdiction over Mary who is an out of state resident and business owner.
Applicable Law
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” CCP §410.10 Also known as California’s “Long Arm Statue” the law provides that the use is usually constitutional “where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against him or her.” (Cite)
Additionally, under the ruling “Any person may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of this state against a foreign corporation or nonresident person where the action or proceeding arises out of or relates to any contract, agreement, or undertaking for which a choice of California law has been made in whole or in part by the parties thereto and which (a) is a contract, agreement, or undertaking, contingent or otherwise, relating to a transaction involving in the aggregate not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), and (b) contains a provision or provisions under which the
Our Client, Froogle (“Froogle”) has retained our firm to file suit againt Mary, a small manufacturer and retailer of downhill snow skis. Froogle and Mary signed an agreement in January of 2012. On or about March 15, 2012 Froogle discovered that Mary had breached several of the terms of their agreement. We filed suit in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California on behalf of Froogle on May 31,2012. Mary, a resident of Vermont, responded by filing a motion for non-conveniens claiming that because her business and residence are in Vermont, California has no jurisdiction over her. Mary violated the terms of her agreement and should be brought to answer for her actions in a California court of law, as Froogle’s main place of business is Salinas, California.
Issue Presented
The issue is whether or not Froogle has jurisdiction over Mary who is an out of state resident and business owner.
Applicable Law
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” CCP §410.10 Also known as California’s “Long Arm Statue” the law provides that the use is usually constitutional “where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against him or her.” (Cite)
Additionally, under the ruling “Any person may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of this state against a foreign corporation or nonresident person where the action or proceeding arises out of or relates to any contract, agreement, or undertaking for which a choice of California law has been made in whole or in part by the parties thereto and which (a) is a contract, agreement, or undertaking, contingent or otherwise, relating to a transaction involving in the aggregate not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), and (b) contains a provision or provisions under which the