Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Sutton Construction
Filed 5/11/06 Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Sutton Construction CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUTTON CONSTRUCTION AND DRYWALL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035722 (Super. Ct. No. 05CC02394) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelman & Robinson, Dean B. Herman and Robin James for Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Cochran Firm and Randy McMurray for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford) appeals from an order granting defendants' motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Hartford also challenges the denial of its request for a continuance to conduct discovery on jurisdiction. We find the appeal without merit and affirm.
FACTS
The Actions
Carl Sutton, a resident of Alabama, is president of a drywall and painting contractor, Sutton Construction and Drywall, Inc., an Alabama corporation. (Collectively, Sutton, except where individual identification is needed.) In a civil lawsuit filed in Alabama in December 2002 (the Sutton action), Sutton sued CapitalWerks, a California corporation, and its then-employee, Kyle Hanson, a California resident. (Collectively, CapitalWerks, except where individual identification is needed.) Sutton alleged CapitalWerks, a broker of equipment financing and leasing contracts, contacted Sutton through Hanson, and promised to provide financing for Sutton's equipment leases. Accepting the offer and in reliance on it, Sutton secured a lease on a truck and forklift, took on new construction contracts, and incurred obligations and debt, but Hanson failed to provide the financing as agreed. As a result, Sutton was placed in a â€
