Sheard v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 27 June 1974 |
| Citation | 40 Cal.App.3d 207,114 Cal.Rptr. 743 |
| Parties | Leonard T. SHEARD et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Respondent, Allen S. JARVIS, also known as Alan S. Jarvis, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 34590. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, San Francisco, for petitioners.
George C. Martinez, James D. Hadfield, San Francisco, for real party in interest.
In this proceeding we issued an alternative writ of mandate upon a petition seeking a writ of mandate commanding respondent court to issue its order quashing service of summons.
On October 18, 1972, real party, a California resident, instituted an action for damages for personal injuries against defendant Sheard Science Supplies, Inc. (hereinafter 'Sheard'), a Wisconsin corporation. The first amended unverified complaint for damages served on Sheard named Sheard and 75 defendants sued under fictitious names. Sheard answered the complaint. Real party also caused a copy of the summons and the first amended complaint to be served on petitioners in Wisconsin as defendants named Doe One through Five in the complaint on September 21 and 22, 1973. Petitioners, on November 15, 1973, filed a motion to quash the service of summons made upon them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of respondent court over petitioners pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10. This motion, supported by petitioners' affidavits, was noticed for hearing on November 29, 1973.
On December 31, 1973, real party filed notice of motion for leave to amend the complaint. This motion was accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities opposing the motion to quash summons and supporting the motion for leave to amend the complaint, the proposed second amended complaint for damages, and the declaration of real party's attorney. Real party's motion was noticed for hearing for January 11, 1974.
On January 28, 1974, petitioners filed a response to real party's memorandum of points and authorities. Both motions were apparently continued to January 25, 1974, and were heard on that date. Following the hearing the court made two orders. It first ordered that the motion to quash service of summons be denied, and then ordered that the motion for an order permitting amendment to the complaint be granted and directed that real party file a second amended complaint identical in form and content to the proposed amended complaint. The record does not disclose whether the second amended complaint was ever filed.
Petitioners contend that since they at no time resided in the State of California and owned no property or did any business in California service upon them outside the state was ineffective to give respondent court in personam jurisdiction over them. Real party, in turn, contends that since Sheard has admitted doing business in this state and the complaint alleges that Sheard is the alter ego of petitioners, who are its stockholders, respondent court has jurisdiction over both Sheard and petitioners.
With particular respect to real party's contention we observe that it has been held in this state that if a subsidiary corporation acts as an agent of the parent corporation or is so controlled by the parent as to justify disregard of the separate entity jurisdiction over the subsidiary will support jurisdiction over the parent. (Empire Steel Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 823, 832, 17 Cal.Rptr. 150, 366 P.2d 502, see also Rest.2d Conflict of Laws, § 52, com. (b).) Upon analogy we are persuaded that there a corporation is the alter ego of the stockholders so as to justify disregard of the corporate entity jurisdiction over the corporation will support jurisdiction over the stockholders. (See Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 836--842, 26 Cal.Rptr. 806.)
Adverting to the instant case we first observe that the scope of appellate review is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record before the reviewing court to support the order of the trial court, resolving factual issues in favor of the prevailing party. (Murray v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 611, 619--620, 284 [40 Cal.App.3d 211] P.2d 1; National Life of Florida Corp. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.3d 281, 285, 98 Cal.Rptr. 435.) We also note, preliminarily, that where a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to an effective service. (Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Broadway Lbr. Co., 222 Cal.App.2d 646, 653, 35 Cal.Rptr. 385; Turner v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.2d 468, 472, 32 Cal.Rptr. 717; Holtkamp v. States Marine Corp., 165 Cal.App.2d 131, 137, 331 P.2d 679; Briggs v. Superior Court, 81 Cal.App.2d 240, 251, 183 P.2d 758.)
In support of their motion to quash petitioners filed an affidavit asserting that Sheard is a Wisconsin corporation, maintaining no offices or places of business in California and having no agents or employees who are residents of California; that all business transacted with residents of California is done in interstate commerce; and that petitioners are the directors and owners, in varying specified proportions, of all the issued and outstanding stock of Sheard. In addition each of petitioners filed an affidavit stating that petitioner is a resident of the State of Wisconsin; that petitioner has never resided and does not now reside in the State of California; that petitioner has never owned and does not now own any real property in the State of California; and that petitioner has never as an individual transacted intrastate business in the State of California or business in interstate commerce with any California resident.
The affidavit filed by real party in opposition to the motion to quash was in the form of a declaration made by his attorney. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. Spademan
...Co., 382 F.Supp. 388 (D.Md.1974); Lawson v. Baltimore Paint & Chemical Corp., 298 F.Supp. 373 (D.Md.1969); Sheard v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 114 Cal.Rptr. 743 (1974); Harris v. Arlen Properties, Inc., 256 Md. 185, 260 A.2d 22 (1969); 1 C. Swearingen, Fletcher's Cyclopedia of the ......
-
Hearn Pac. Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing Inc.
...a contested motion, because "the complaint was unverified and therefore could not serve as an affidavit." (Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 212, 114 Cal.Rptr. 743.) But a pleading party may be bound by the factual allegations it makes in a complaint, even if the complaint ......
-
Leek v. Cooper
...of allegations of facts from which it appears that justice cannot otherwise be accomplished.” ( Ibid.) In Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 114 Cal.Rptr. 743, the issue was whether service on the individual, out-of-state stockholder defendants should be quashed because the ......
-
Von Grabe v. Sprint Pcs
...of the court, then jurisdiction could be asserted over all the corporate defendants. See id. (citing Sheard v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 210, 114 Cal.Rptr. 743 (1974) ("[W]here a corporation is the alter ego of the stockholders so as to justify disregard of the corporate entity[,] ......