Nonresident defendant who filed earlier, related lawsuit is subject to personal jurisdiction in state court

Law Reporter, Aug 2003

Nobel Floral, Inc. v. Pasero, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 881 (Ct. App. 2003).

A California appellate court held that a nonresident of the state consented to personal jurisdiction for the purposes of a legal negligence action against him by filing an earlier lawsuit in state court that arose from the same transaction as the alleged legal negligence.

Here, a California corporation retained a Mexican attorney to pursue an insurance claim relating to a fire in a Mexican warehouse. The attorney later sued the corporation in a California court for unpaid fees. Some time later, the corporation brought a separate action in state court against the attorney, alleging failure to file a complaint. Defendant asserted that the was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, and the trial court quashed the summons.

Reversing, the appellate court noted the long-recognized principle that when a nonresident plaintiff commences a lawsuit, he or she submits to the court's personal jurisdiction on any cross-complaint filed by the defendant. The question in this case, the court said, is whether a nonresident plaintiff who has filed suit against particular parties has consented to jurisdiction in the state when these same parties later sue him in a related action.

Citing case law, the court found there was an "unjust asymmetry" in allowing a nonresident to enjoy the full benefits of access to a state's courts as a plaintiff, while nonetheless retaining immunity from the state's authority as a defendant with respect to claims being asserted by the very party that he sued.

Here, defendant availed himself of the benefits of a California court in his earlier lawsuit, and the legal negligence action filed by plaintiff against defendant arises from the same general transaction as his earlier suit. Accordingly, die court held that defendant submitted himself to personal jurisdiction in California by previously filing anodier action here arising from the same general transaction.

The court added that defendant's argument that he lacked the "minimum contacts" with the state to make jurisdiction appropriate under the Due Process Clause is unavailing, because such analysis involves a court's exercise of jurisdiction over a nonconsenting defendant under state long-arm statutes. Here, defendant consented to personal jurisdiction by using the state's court system for a prior suit.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Melchor E. Quevedo, Chula Vista, Cal.