Stratford v. Botros
Filed 9/8/06 Stratford v. Botros CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| MICHAEL STRATFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN BOTROS et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A111215 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-05-437571) |
All parties to this appeal, plaintiff Michael Stratford and defendants Duncan Robinson, John Botros and Anthony Lawson, are citizens of Great Britain. While Mr. Stratford and Mr. Robinson were both residing in Great Britain, they entered into a contract to develop property in New York, and Mr. Stratford moved there to oversee the project. After the project was sold in 2002, Mr. Robinson filed suit against Mr. Stratford in New York but was unable to locate him to effect service of process. He hired a London firm of private investigators who, in late 2004, located Mr. Stratford in San Francisco. It is unclear from the record before us how long he had been in San Francisco, or if he is residing still in California. Thereafter, Mr. Robinson hired Mr. Botros, a London barrister, and Mr. Lawson, a London solicitor, to resolve his dispute with Mr. Stratford.
Mr. Stratford filed suit in San Francisco against Mr. Botros and Mr. Lawson, alleging that, under California law, they threatened and took improper action against him in connection with the collection of the debt allegedly owed by him to Mr. Robinson. These activities allegedly included making or sending threatening emails, letters and telephone calls to plaintiff and his solicitor, Oliver Mayes; engaging in illegal wiretapping; hacking into plaintiff's computer; and a threatening visit to Mr. Stratford's San Francisco residence by Jamie Black and Darryl Payne, employees of Global Debt Recovery Services (GDRS).
This appeal is from an order granting motions of Mr. Lawson and Mr. Botros to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mr. Robinson filed a similar motion, but it was denied and is not a part of this appeal.
We affirm.[1]
Personal Jurisdiction
â€
