Appellants, nonparty deponents in an unfair competition action, challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted respondent company’s motion to compel production of subpoenaed business records from the nonparties. There is best team of top business law attorney California.
On the date set for the production, the nonparties separately responded by serving objections to the subpoenas and declining to produce any documents. The motion to compel was filed more than 60 days after the date set for the production. The court held that the motion to compel was untimely under Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480. The objections served in response to the business records subpoenas constituted a record of a deposition within the meaning of § 2025.480, subd. (b). The court noted that neither the number of objections nor the proportion of records produced could be used in defining the record for purposes of determining when to bring a motion to compel. The record was complete as of the date set for the production, when the objections were received, and the 60-day period for filing a motion to compel began on that date. The deadline was mandatory. The court further noted that although Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, did not contain express time limits for bringing a motion to compel, this did not mean that the motion was timely because it was brought within a reasonable time; there was no need for § 1987.1 to set forth filing deadlines that appeared in other statutes.
The court reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to vacate the order that had granted the motion to compel and to enter a new order denying the motion.
Appellant nonprofit organization sought review of an order by the Superior Court for the County of Marin (California), quashing service of summons over respondent corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Appellant, a nonprofit organization, sought review of the trial court’s order quashing service of summons over respondent corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction. Respondent shipped some of its products to a General Services Administration (G.S.A.) depot in Stockton, California pursuant to an out-of-state contract. G.S.A. determined the final destination of respondent’s products but respondent knew some products would remain in California. Appellant argued that the trial court erred in quashing service of summons because respondent’s business contacts in California satisfied the requirements for both general and limited jurisdiction. On appeal, the court found that respondent’s contacts with California failed to provide the trial court with general jurisdiction. The court found that the G.S.A. sales did not involve systematic and continuous contacts with California. However, the court held respondent’s contacts did furnish California with limited jurisdiction over respondent so as not to offend the due process clause. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the trial court.
The court reversed the decision of the trial court, which quashed service of summons over respondent corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that respondent’s contacts with California failed to provide the trial court with general jurisdiction, but did furnish California with limited jurisdiction over respondent consistent with the United States and California Constitutions.