BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 914·190 Cal. App. 4th 421·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1999·31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1267
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 2010No. B219289California4,806 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Epstein, J.

Charles Engen sued his former employer, Ontic Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. (Ontic), and its parent corporation, BBA Aviation PLC (BBA), for wrongful termination. Petitioner, BBA, moved to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and ineffective service of process. Respondent, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (trial court), denied the motion and found jurisdiction over BBA proper under the representative services doctrine. BBA seeks a writ of *427 mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order and grant BBA’s motion to quash. BBA contends that the representative services doctrine does not apply because it is a holding company. BBA also claims that no alternative basis for jurisdiction exists. We agree and issue a writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In 2005, plaintiff and real party in interest, Charles Engen, was hired by Ontic as a computer programmer analyst. He was terminated in 2008. Following his termination, Engen filed a wrongful termination suit against Ontic and its English parent company, BBA. The complaint alleged BBA was an agent of Ontic, but all the allegations were directed at…

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.