President of Dietary Supplement Maker Dismissed from Products Liability Case

October 1, 2003

, Jane O. Matsuda,

and Tina D. Varjian recently obtained a dismissal in a products liability case. Plaintiff sued defendant, the president and sole shareholder of a maker of dietary supplements, for injuries she allegedly sustained by taking one of the products manufactured by defendant's company.

The defense moved to dismiss the complaint against defendant via a motion to quash summons based on the contention that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Specifically, the defense argued that defendant, a resident of Missouri, did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California. The plaintiff argued that California had personal jurisdiction over defendant because he was allegedly a designer and promoter of the dietary supplement, as well as President and sole shareholder of the company.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the defendant. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal. On appeal, the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court did not err in finding that the State of California could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant because, despite his close connection with the company, he did not purposely avail himself of the benefits of California or intentionally cause an effect in California.