Froogle V. Mary Ccp 410.10

Relevant Facts Our Client, Froogle (Froogle) has retained our firm to file suit againt bloody shame, a half-size manufacturer and retailer of downhill snow skis. Froogle and Mary signed an agreement in January of 2012. On or ab step up March 15, 2012 Froogle disc everywhereed that Mary had collapseed several of the terms of their agreement. We filed suit in Superior hail for the County of Monterey in Salinas, calcium on behalf of Froogle on May 31,2012.Mary, a resident of Vermont, responded by filing a motion for non-conveniens claiming that because her business and residence be in Vermont, California has no legal power all oer her. Mary violated the terms of her agreement and should be brought to answer for her feats in a California act of law, as Froogles main place of business is Salinas, California. Issue Presented The issue is whether or not Froogle has jurisdiction over Mary who is an out of state resident and business owner.Applicable Law Under the California mark of well-bred Procedure A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any bottom not in accordant with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. CCP 410. 10 Also known as Californias Long Arm Statue the law provides that the use is usually constitutional where the suspect has certain(prenominal) minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against him or her. (Cite)Additionally, to a lower place the judgement Any person may maintain an action or effect in a court of this state against a foreign corporation or nonresident person where the action or proceeding arises out of or relates to any tailor, agreement, or undertaking for which a choice of California law has been do in whole or in part by the parties thereto and which (a) is a contract, agreement, or undertaking, possible or separatewise, relating to a transaction involving in the aggregate not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), and (b) contains a pro vision or provisions under which the foreign corporation or nonresident agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. In 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Gator. com Corp. , Plaintiff-appellant, v. L. L. Bean, Inc. , Defendant, appelee, L. L. Bean had an internet catalog and mail order site or a virtual caudex. Court held that LL Beans marketing and retail activities and virtual store created a consistent and substantial pattern of business relations in California, sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the Maine-based company Gator. In Pavlovich v.Superior Court, the court addressed the issue of internet and jurisdiction holding that the Internet, as a mode of communication and a system of information delivery is new, but the rules governing the protection of attribute rights, and how that protection may be enforced under the new technology, need not be. 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 623 (Cal. Ct. App. August 7, 2001) However, in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , the court determined that A passive website that does little more than make information operational is not generally lay downs for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. It then goes on to say that The middle ground is occupied by the interactive websites where a user can exchange information with the host computer.(Zippo trial cases) 957 F. Supp. 1119 (W. D. Pa. 1997). The middle ground definition cited above is key in Froogles case because Froogle was not only a passive website. Users were able to click on the Froogle store and appear for items. The store then quoted set and directed the user to the defendants website or alternatively they could purchase through Froogle, using their reference book card or other financing available and Froogle would forward the order to the defendant to fulfill the order. In Frank Snowney v. Harrahs the plaintiff reserved a room by telephone from his California residence. He was told that the room would cost $50/night plus tax.Whe n he received the bill he paid a $3 energy surcharge. Plaintiff filed a class action against Harrahs alleging they charged him and other guests more than the publicize price. The defendants filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that they were incorporated and based out of Nevada, they conducted no business in California and had no bank accounts in California. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants 1-advertised extensively to California residents through billboards in California, newspapers and radio & television 2) maintained an interactive website that accepted reservations from California residents. The Court conclude that defendants had sufficient contacts in California to justify jurisdiction in the state. 116 Cal. App. 4th 996, (2004). Application to Our Case Froogle is a California corporation with home offices in Salinas, California. Froogles contract was signed by the defendant and the defendant was well aware of Froogles location. Froogl es software was developed in California and their servers are all located in various parts of California Froogle is clearly a California product. As the defendant used online transactions through Froogles site to set up their account and perform other implementation functions it can be easily argued that this was a California based transaction.Further to this, the defendant benefitted from Froogles high-pitched profile in California, expanding their customer base throughout the state and thus increasing their sales. The California Code protects Froogles right to jurisdiction in California under the Long Arm statute. Although there are rare circumstances where this can be overturned, the statute provides the ability for a California corporation that has entered under a contract or similar document with a non-resident partner to gain jurisdiction over that entity should breach of that contract occur. The Snowney case more than implies that if one enters into an agreement with a Cali fornia entity, and a breach or other violation of the agreement occurs, the parties will more than likely be bringing their action to a California court.The reservation can certainly be interpreted to be a contract as it binds both parties to an obligation and by acceptance of the terms of a reservation, the parties have entered into an agreement or contract. Froogle has the right as a California corporation to file their action in the state of California. The defendant knew it was entering into a contract with a California corporation based out of Salinas, CA. The defendant chose the website collectible to its power in the retail internet market. It also took advantage of the plaintiffs website store which brought leads to the defendants store from prospective customers. The defendants business benefitted greatly from its presence in the plaintiffs search engine and webstore. The defendant has no right to jurisdiction in this case and this proceeding should continue in California.