Goehring

Goehring v. Superior Court

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 265·62 Cal. App. 4th 894·73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105·98 Daily Journal DAR 3211·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2362
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1998D029568California5,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

Judith E. Bernier and others (plaintiffs) purchased pay telephone units as investments from Amtel Communications, Inc. (Amtel), a California corporation. After Amtel filed for bankruptcy, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging the investment scheme was fraudulent and violated several California statutes. Plaintiffs named numerous defendants, including Texas residents Dennis H. Goehring and Pete William Catalena, general partners of a Texas partnership that sold pay telephone units to Amtel. Goehring and Catalena (sometimes petitioners) petitioned for writ of mandate, challenging the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We grant the writ of mandate, and order the trial court to vacate its denial of the dismissal motion. We order the court to rule on plaintiffs’ discovery request and, based on that ruling, to enter a new order on petitioners’ dismissal motion consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Complaint

As is relevant here, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following.

Each plaintiff purchased a pay telephone unit from Amtel under a “sale-leaseback” investment program. Under this…

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.