In Re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 100·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1965·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14779·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10807
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2005A109805California11,341 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Peter Sullivan, Douglas B. Miner, Raminta A. Rudys, Joel Sanders, San Francisco, for Nissan Motor Ltd.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Norman C. Hile, Michael C. Weed, Sacramento, for Honda Motors Co., Ltd.

Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Richard Darwin, San Francisco, Fried, Frank, Harris Shriver & Jacobson, Eric H. Queen, Deborah A. Garza, Franklin M. Rubenstein, Los Angeles, for Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

Herzfeld & Rubin, Craig L. Winterman, Jeffrey Chase, Los Angeles, for Volkswagen AG.

Certified For Partial Publication. [*]

REARDON, Acting P.J.

In this coordinated proceeding, the trial court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over four nonresident foreign defendants: Honda Motors Co., Ltd. of Japan (Honda), Volkswagen AG of Germany (Volkswagen), Nissan Motor Ltd. of Japan (Nissan) and the Canadian Automobile Dealers' Association (CADA) of Canada. As such, it granted motions to quash service of summons brought by each of these defendants. The plaintiffs [1] appeal, contending that the three parent manufacturers (1) are subject to the specific jurisdiction of California courts under the stream of commerce doctrine…

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.