Appellant licensee sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied her writ of mandate, upheld the suspension of the her liquor license, and held that she was unjustified in serving liquor to a minor.

The licensee was charged with illegally serving liquor to minors. The licensee's liquor license was suspended and she filed a petition for writ of mandate with the superior court. The superior court denied the licensee's writ of mandate because it found that the licensee was unjustified in serving liquor to one of the minors. The Sexual harassment defense lawyer reversed the superior court judgment because there had been no finding that the licensee acted in bad faith, or failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted when reviewing the identification card provided by the minor. The prosecution failed to present the identification card into evidence, there was no evidence or finding as to whether the minor looked 21 or younger, and no evidence to rebut the testimony of the licensee's bartender that the card looked like an official identification card. The court concluded that since the identification card appeared to be official, and the bartender testified that he believed that it was official, the liquor control board and courts were without power to suspend the licensee's liquor license without finding that the bartender acted in bad faith and without due diligence.

 

The court reversed the judgment that denied the licensee's petition for writ of mandate.

Plaintiff Domestic Corporation appealed an order from Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted defendant foreign corporation's motion to quash service after plaintiff brought suit for misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in finding that defendant did not have requisite minimum contacts with the state through its agent.

In an action against defendant foreign corporation for misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff Domestic Corporation appealed the trial court's order quashing service of process. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in finding that defendant had insufficient contacts with the forum state to maintain jurisdiction. The court reversed, ruling that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 410.10 permitted the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant company based upon its minimum contacts with the forum state unless to do so would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court held that personal jurisdiction over corporations was based upon their agents' activities within the forum state and that imputing an agent's knowledge or conduct for purposes of personal jurisdiction was proper where his conduct occurred within the scope of his authority. The court held that a single tortious act was sufficient for personal jurisdiction if the act was aimed at a resident of the state or had effects in the state. The court found that the uncontroverted evidence established the person alleged to have stolen the trade secrets was defendant's agent.

The court reversed the trial court's order quashing service of process on defendant foreign corporation. The court ruled that the allegation of tortious conduct of defendant's acknowledged agent committed within the scope of his authority was in itself sufficient to maintain jurisdiction, whether or not defendant knew of the tortious nature of the conduct.

Author's Bio: 

Marina Pal is a renowned author and social media enthusiast.