Procedural Posture

Petitioner corporation sought a writ of mandate to compel respondent, the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), to set aside its order for substituted service of process and to quash service of summons on it pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code § 6501 in an action brought by the real party in interest on the ground that the requirements of § 6501 were not met and that it was not subject to service of process under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 411.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains California Paystub Requirements

Overview

Plaintiff in an underlying action sought substituted service on petitioner corporation to join additional defendants in the lawsuit. Respondent, the Superior Court of San Mateo County, allowed plaintiff to serve process on petitioner pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code § 6501. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel respondent to set aside its order for substituted service of process and to quash service of summons. The court denied the peremptory writ and discharged the alternate writ, and held that there was no merit to petitioner’s contention that the affidavit for service on the secretary of state did not meet the requirements of § 6501 because the existence of the required facts was alleged directly and without qualification and the statute did not provide that the affidavit could not be made by plaintiff’s attorney. Further, the statute authorized service of process on foreign corporations that were doing business in the state, meaning such minimum contacts that the maintenance of the suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The evidence showed that petitioner had the requisite contacts to subject it to the state court’s jurisdiction.

Outcome

The court denied the peremptory writ and discharged the alternate writ in mandamus filed against respondent, the Superior Court of San Mateo County, to set aside its order for substituted service of process and to quash service of summons on petitioner corporation and held that petitioner had the requisite minimum contacts with the state to subject it to jurisdiction of the state courts.