Thomson

Thomson v. Anderson

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 258·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1693·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12353·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9829
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 2003G031407California4,159 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

We hold Corporations Code section 31420 (section 31420) does not create an independent basis for personal jurisdiction for claims arising under the Franchise Investment Law, Corporations Code section 31000 et seq. Section 31420 is a service of process statute providing that a nonresident, by engaging in conduct prohibited by or made actionable under the Franchise Investment Law, consents to the appointment of the Commissioner of Corporations as attorney to receive service of process of a complaint brought under the Franchise Investment Law. Notwithstanding section 31420, there still must exist grounds for exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that are not inconsistent with the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff Robert Stephen Thomson brought this action alleging violations of the Franchise Investment Law and asserted defendants Kenneth Anderson, Garrett Boone, Goodhue Smith III, and Roy Terracina (the moving defendants), all Texas residents, were subject to personal jurisdiction in California pursuant to section 31420. The trial court granted the moving defendants’ motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal…

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.