Schaffman v. Honarvar
We affirm an order quashing a subpoena on defendant, a resident of Mexico. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the evidence she presented was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that defendant had substantial, continuous and systematic contacts with the state at the time the complaint was served such that California could exercise general jurisdiction over defendant. At most the evidence plaintiff presented showed that defendant had, at or near the time of service, some relationship with a California business. Plaintiff's evidence, however, did not show that defendant exercised the level of control over or participation in the business which would permit California to exercise jurisdiction over him with respect to matters unrelated to the business. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which shows defendant's activities in the state were in any meaningful way connected to plaintiff's injuries. Thus the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion.
Comments on Schaffman v. Honarvar