Clayworth v. Johnson & Johnson
Filed 8/17/06 Clayworth v. Johnson & Johnson CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| JAMES CLAYWORTH, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., Respondent. | A112268 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04172428) |
I. INTRODUCTION
Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (J&J) was named as a defendant in appellants' third amended complaint. The trial court granted J&J's motion to quash service of process, finding it did not have general or specific personal jurisdiction over J&J. We affirm.
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' appendix, which has been erroneously labeled as a joint appendix,[1] does not contain a copy of the complaint or any information regarding the nature of appellants' substantive claims. Further, appellants have declined to identify themselves in their appellate briefs and do not even disclose the subject matter of this action until page 27 of their reply brief where they state that the third amended complaint alleges a â€
