Schering Corp. v. Superior Court

Good Law
125 Cal. Rptr. 337·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1505·52 Cal. App. 3d 737
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 1975Civ. 46697California1,671 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

The case at bench arises on an alternative writ of mandate issued at the direction of the Supreme Court. It raises the issue of the effectiveness of service of summons to obtain jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business in California in light of the of Code of Civil Procedure sections 412.30 and 416.10. Concluding that the record establishes that summons was not served in substantial compliance with section 412.30, we direct that a peremptory writ of mandate issue requiring the trial court to vacate its order denying petitioner’s motion to quash and to enter a new order quashing service. Because the hearing in the trial court resulting in the order to which the peremptory writ is addressed occurred more than three years after the action was commenced, we also direct the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit as to petitioner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581a.

On April 20, 1972, real party in interest filed her action for negligence and products liability alleging injury from the use of the drugs “Feminone” and “Pro-estrin.” The complaint names as defendants William H. Perloff, M. D., and The Upjohn Company and Interstate Drug Exchange as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.