Procedural Posture
Plaintiff professional entertainers sought review of an order of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California), which granted the motion of defendant tabloid editor and defendant tabloid writer to quash out-of-state service of process in plaintiffs’ complaint against them for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Overview: rule of court 3.1332
Plaintiff professional entertainers sued defendant tabloid editor and defendant tabloid writer for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to quash out-of-state service of process, holding that defendants lacked sufficient contacts for the forum to exercise personal jurisdiction and also weighing considerations of U.S. Const. amend. I. The court held that the trial court erred in applying a test pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. I because defendants did not enjoy a special preference in deciding in personam jurisdiction questions dealing with the publication of allegedly tortious material. The court held that defendants lacked sufficient contacts with California for general jurisdiction to apply. However, the court held that California could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant editor because he committed an act outside the state with the intent to cause a tortious effect within the state and over defendant writer because he gathered information and material for the libelous article from California by telephone and in person. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s grant of the motion of defendant tabloid editor and tabloid writer quashing out-of-state service of process because the trial court applied an improper First Amendment, U.S. Const. I, consideration and because it was fair and reasonable to subject defendants to the jurisdiction of the California courts.
Her Campus 