Petitioner foreign parent corporation sought a writ of mandate seeking to enforce an alternative writ previously entered by the court, which required respondent Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion to quash service of summons in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff former employee, a real party in interest, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s former employer, a real party in interest, sued the petitioner foreign parent corporation for wrongful termination and related actions after he was fired by the petitioner's California subsidiary. Petitioner filed a motion to quash service of summons, which respondent trial court denied. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate, and the court issued an alternative writ requiring the respondent to vacate its order denying the motion and to enter a new order granting the motion to quash. Respondent did not do so, and the matter came back before the court on the alternative order to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. Visit the Los Angeles labor law lawyers who know all about labor law.

Finding no substantial evidence to support either general or specific jurisdiction over the petitioner, the court issued the writ and directed respondent to grant the petitioner's motion. The court held that the fact that employees of the subsidiary were frequently terminated following visits from petitioner did not create a substantial link between petitioner, the state, and plaintiff's injuries where there was no showing that petitioner was responsible for or even reviewed or approved the decision to terminate plaintiff.

Because the court found no substantial evidence in the record to support any basis for general or specific jurisdiction over petitioner foreign parent corporation by a court of the state of California, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondent trial court to vacate its decision denying petitioner's motion to quash service of summons and directing respondent to issue an order granting the motion.

Plaintiff assignee challenged a decision of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco (California), which entered an order granting a new trial in favor of defendant executor in the assignee's action to recover a sum of money claimed to be due on a contract made by the executor's decedent with the assignee's assignor.

The decedent was an attorney. The complaint alleged that the decedent and another attorney had agreed with the assignor that if he was able to procure a woman to hire them as her attorneys to prosecute her claim against a certain estate, then the assignor was to have received a third of their fee for such procurement. The decedent and the other attorney were hired, won the claim, and were paid by the client. The assignee of the assignor maintained that the assignor was never paid his share of the fee. The trial court granted the motion for a new trial because the contract sued upon was contrary to public policy. The assignee argued that this was error. The court affirmed, holding that the contract stated in the complaint was an indirect violation of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 287(4), which was as much forbidden as a direct violation. Further, the executor had the right to have the trial court review its action in denying the motion for nonsuit in a motion for a new trial. Also, there was nothing irregular in having the question made on the motion for a nonsuit considered and passed on in the court, though it did go to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the complaint.
The order was affirmed.