The court correctly concluded that California had long-arm jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants, based upon their soliciting plaintiff in California by phone, exchanging drafts of the investor agreement by email, emailing status reports of the proposed venture, and flying to California to meet with plaintiff, conduct which cumulatively evinced that they purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protection of California law, from which this dispute arose...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.