This probably sounds stupid to you guys but I am studying and I am having trouble determining if the court would have jurisdiction over the defendant on this hypo:
P (Alaska domicile) v. D (Massachusetts domicile)
Claim for battery occurring in Colorado in California state court.
D owns a residence in California & employs California residents to maintain the property.
Assuming D receives proper service in California, Does California have jurisdiction over the D as a result of his California “residence,” even though he is domiciled in Massachusetts and the battery happened outside of California?
Dude got served in Cali? Should be all you need bro. Doesn’t matter about his residence (which would usually not be a factor if I remember correctly.
I don’t think there’s PJ in this situation post Connecticut v. Doehr. This is a quasi in rem type 2 action unrelated to a claim from the property, so Dubin v. Philadelphia doesn’t apply.
This is for a long arm statute. Didn’t see in person service in the OP.
Okay. Thanks for the replies. If there wasn’t service of process in California - lets say D was served by the California court via certified mail in Massachusetts - would D’s second “residence” there be sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over him in California making him amenable to the suit for battery occurring outside the state?
The test for general jurisdiction is “continuous and systematic” contact.
So, I suppose P’s argument would be that through the maintenance of the house in CA, D met the standard.
But, that’s pretty weak. You’d other forms of evidence to prove that D had “continuous and systematic contact.”
The simple maintenance of a house may not cut it for some courts.
No way, Jose. To satisfy PJ in California for an action arising in CO defendant individual would have to be subject to general jursidiction in CA. He is propertly domiciled in MA not CA.
Substantial and pervasive contact with the forum is only relevant to corporations.