Posted by rey on May 01, 2002 at 11:01:41:
In Reply to: pretty good chart posted by TDI_2 on May 01, 2002 at 10:24:03:
About the filing in Orange county, PADI is trying to assert that diverlink is subject to the personal jurisdiction of California because it has adequate minimum contacts with the state of Calif to be subject to jurisdiction, and that diverlink purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of California law by conducting business here.
In their complaint PADI argues that diverlink has conducted business in Calif thereby purposefully availed itself in Calif. Whether or not that is true will be interesting to see, but filing an action definitely need not be brought in the defendant's home state. Also, the defendant is not a respondent until there is an appeal. Hope that helps.
Post a Followup