Thiebaut

In the above-entitled action, cross-complainants Paul Thiebaut and Starr Thiebaut appeal from an order in favor of cross-defendants Blue Cross of Indiana and Blue Shield of Indiana, quashing service of summons on, and dismissing, their cross-complaint.

The issue is whether under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, providing—“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States”—the superior court had obtained jurisdiction over Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Indiana corporations.

The apposite law is stated by Hunt v. Erie Ins. Group (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1244 , 1246-1247, as follows:

The evidentiary showing of the parties in the superior court was by declarations under penalty of perjury.

We first consider the evidence as it bore upon the “general juris diction” of California’s courts.

The declaration of the Indiana corporations declared: “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana are both Indiana mutual insurance corporations, each incorporated under the Indiana Insurance Law . . . who operate jointly pursuant to a written contract and who maintain their principal place of business…