Bell v. Li-Huang











Filed 11/22/10 Bell v. Li-Huang CA6








NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THIEU-HUAN BELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REBECCA LI-HUANG, et al. Defendants and Respondents.

H035218 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV142563)

I. INTRODUCTION
The issue in this appeal is whether California may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over respondents Rebecca Li-Huang (Rebecca) and Harry (He) Huang (Harry),[1] who are residents of Pennsylvania and the defendants in the instant malicious prosecution action brought by appellant Thieu-Huan Bell (Bell), a California resident.
Rebecca and Harry loaned $11,000 to Bell's brother, Thuan-Nghi Le (Le), by wiring the money to Bell's mother's bank account in California. Rebecca and Harry sought to collect the $11,000 debt by first sending demand letters to Bell and her mother in California, then by filing a Pennsylvania collection action that they attempted to serve on Bell in California. After the Pennsylvania action was dismissed with prejudice as to Bell, she filed this malicious prosecution action against Rebecca and Harry in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
Rebecca and Harry filed a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10,[2] which the trial court granted on the ground that California could not exercise personal jurisdiction because they had not â€