Personal Jurisdiction Quash Grounds Not Seen Different From Forum Dismissal.
I guess we can wax nostalgic, but why or why not? The great thing about our blog is we report on continuing jurisprudence which, like a river, continues on and on each day.
In our first post going back to May 11, 2008, we reported on Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal.App.4th 950 (2008), a Fourth District, Division 3 opinion authored by Justice Fybel. Profit Concepts, which has been frequently cited, held that a defendant who successfully moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction (IPJ) was a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 for fee recovery if there was a relevant fee clause allowing for such recovery. Well, what happens if a similarly-situated defendant wins, but on forum non conveniens (FNC) grounds? Same result. Stay tuned.
Yes, according to the Fourth District, Division 3 in PNEC Corp. v. Meyer, Case No. G042297 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2010) (certified for publication), in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Ikola. The result was that the defendant gained fee recovery of $21,677.25, pretty close to the full amount requested.
Justice Ikola found no real reason to differentiate between dismissals based on IPJ versus NFC. After all, it was consonant with other California authorities awarding attorney’s fees where the court did not reach a final, on-the-merits ruling on a contract claim. (Slip Opn., p. 7.) In fact, the appellate court disagreed with Estate of Drummond, 149 Cal.App.4th 46, 53-54 (2007) to extent it disagreed with Profit Concepts. Even further, it also disagreed with some federal cases critical of Profit Concepts, finding that “Profit Concepts [is] persuasive and [we] opt to follow it.” (Slip Opn., p. 9.)