|
P1536 Specific personal jurisdiction over a parent company based on the activities of its subsidiary is appropriate only if the parent purposefully directed those activities at this state; a trial court should have ruled on plaintiff's request for a continuance to conduct discovery to determine whether the nonresident parent company directed its subsidiary's activities in California before ruling on the parent company's motion to quash service; if the continuance is denied, the motion to quash should be granted, but if the continuance is granted, the trial court should consider any additional evidence submitted as a result of the discovery and rule on the motion to quash in light of it.CitationHEALTHMARKETS v SUPERIOR COURT (Holding Company) 171 CA4 1160 [See: Pavlovich v Superior Court 29 C4 262, P/AT 1/03; DVI v Superior Court 104 CA4 1080, P/AT 1/03]
|
|
