Getzels v. Grail Technology
Filed 5/3/06 Getzels v. Grail Technology CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| MORRIS S. GETZELS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAIL TECHNOLOGY PTE. LTD., Defendant and Respondent; ROBERT STERN, Defendant and Appellant. ___________________________________ DONALD STERN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; MORRIS S. GETZELS et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B185658 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC309654) B188925 |
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Order of July 25, 2005, affirmed; order of August 2, 2005, reversed with directions.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part.
Law Offices of Lyle R. Mink and Lyle R. Mink for Plaintiffs and Appellants and Real Parties in Interest.
Harrison and DeGarmo, Jeffrey B. Harrison and William DeGarmo for Defendant and Respondent Grail Technology Pte. Ltd. and Defendant and Appellant Robert Stern.
Jeffrey B. Harrison for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent Superior Court.
______
Plaintiffs, four attorneys, filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief under a retainer agreement with their former clients, defendants Robert Stern and Donald Stern, who are cousins.[1] Plaintiffs also sued a Singapore corporation, Grail Technology Pte. Ltd., whose founder, president, and 50 percent shareholder is Donald. Before us are two appeals consolidated with a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition. In plaintiffs' appeal from a July 25, 2005 order quashing service of summons on Grail Technology, we affirm the order because the trial court correctly determined that Grail Technology did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California to subject it to personal jurisdiction here. In Robert's appeal from an August 2, 2005 order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment against him in the approximate amount of $10 million, we reverse the order because there was no valid service of process on him and the default and the default judgment against him are thus void. And because the default as to Robert will be vacated, and because plaintiffs and Robert will be litigating issues affecting the rights of Donald and Grail Semiconductor, Inc., we grant that part of the petition for a writ of mandate seeking to stay enforcement of the default judgment.
BACKGROUND
In January 2004, attorneys Morris S. Getzels, Lyle R. Mink, Mark Campbell, and David Haberbush (Attorneys) filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against four defendants: Donald, Robert, Grail Semiconductor, Inc., a California corporation, and Grail Technology, a Singapore corporation. The complaint alleged that in January 2000, Donald and Robert formed Grail Semiconductor to develop and commercialize what they contended was a revolutionary computer memory technology or â€
