|
P0914 From evidence that similarly situated German automobile manufacturers had conspired with US defendants to elevate the price by preventing import of their products from Canada into California, a trial court could have inferred that defendant German automobile manufacturers similarly conspired to do so, which would have established minimum contacts necessary to confer jurisdiction on California courts over defendants, but the trial court was not required to draw such an inference and did not abuse discretion by refusing to do so and quashing the defendants' motion to quash service.CitationIn re AUTOMOBILE ANTITRUST CASES (Long Arm) 135 CA4 100 [See: Snowney v Harrah's 35 C4 1054, P/AT 7/05; Serafini v Superior Court 68 CA4 70, T/AT 1/99]
|
|
