Young v Daimler AG, No. A135995 (D1d4 Aug 5, 2014)
Plaintiffs appeal an order granting a motion to quash service on Daimer AG, because the court lacked general personal jurisdiction over that defendant. Just this past January, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the very same German company was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). So the only thing surprising about the result of this appeal is that the panel granted a request to publish it.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Jurisprudence of Signification
Wood v. Superior Court , No. A168463 (D1d2 Mar. 14, 2024). Yes. You can change your legal name to Candi Bimbo Doll if you want to. See Cod...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
No comments:
Post a Comment