|
Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin
FIRM WINS APPEAL BEFORE THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Partners David Schultz and Philip Cosgrove successfully obtained an affirmance of a trial court's order granting a motion to quash that was filed on behalf of two individual officers of a corporation on the ground personal jurisdiction could not be exercised over them in California. The opinion by Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District in California, in Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin, Appellate Case No. E030927, is reported at 2002 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 8867.
The case arose out of an accident that occurred in California on January 29, 2001, in which the plaintiffs sustained severe injuries while using a product manufactured by Sta-Put Corporation. The plaintiffs filed suit in California against Illinois Tool Works, a Delaware company that acquired Sta-Put Corporation several years before the accident. Illinois Tool Works then filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against two former officers of Sta-Put Corporation, who previously owned and sold 100% of Sta-Put Corporation's stock to Illinois Tool Works. Illinois Tool Works asserted personal jurisdiction against the former officers of Sta-Put Corporation based on the indemnity and defense provisions in the parties' stock purchase agreement, and based on the California activities engaged in by Sta-Put Corporation. A motion to quash was filed against Illinois Tool Works' cross-complaint, arguing that the former officers of Sta-Put Corporation did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California in their individual capacities to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. After multiple rounds of briefing, the trial court granted the motion to quash, which was affirmed on appeal by Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District. The Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments presented in our Respondents' Brief, holding that Due Process principles precluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction in California against the individual officers based on Sta-Put Corporation's purported contacts with California. The Court of Appeal also held that the purported defense and indemnity provisions of the stock purchase agreement could not be used to exercise personal jurisdiction over the individuals, since it was not executed in California and there was no showing that the individuals purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of California law by entering into the agreement.
Partners David Schultz and Philip Cosgrove handled the briefing and arguments before the trial court and Court of Appeal.
To view the Court of Appeal's opinion, click here. To obtain a copy of the Respondents' Brief that was filed in this case, please contact Phil Cosgrove or David Schultz at (213) 533-5400.
|
