Source: https://www.calattorneysfees.com/cases_quashinglack_of_jurisdiction/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:20:23+00:00

Document:
Personal Jurisdiction Quash Grounds Not Seen Different From Forum Dismissal.
I guess we can wax nostalgic, but why or why not? The great thing about our blog is we report on continuing jurisprudence which, like a river, continues on and on each day.
In our first post going back to May 11, 2008, we reported on Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal.App.4th 950 (2008), a Fourth District, Division 3 opinion authored by Justice Fybel. Profit Concepts, which has been frequently cited, held that a defendant who successfully moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction (IPJ) was a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 for fee recovery if there was a relevant fee clause allowing for such recovery. Well, what happens if a similarly-situated defendant wins, but on forum non conveniens (FNC) grounds? Same result. Stay tuned.
Yes, according to the Fourth District, Division 3 in PNEC Corp. v. Meyer, Case No. G042297 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2010) (certified for publication), in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Ikola. The result was that the defendant gained fee recovery of $21,677.25, pretty close to the full amount requested.
Fourth District, Division 1 Construes the Type of “Acts” Which Will Waive Jurisdictional Challenges.
For our purposes, the Fourth District, Division 1 has decided that Italian defendants’ making of a pretrial offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 does not waive motion to quash jurisdictional challenges, if the 998 offer was made after the filing of a motion to quash. The opinion so deciding is Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (Sukumar), Case No. D054878 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 2, 2010) (certified for publication).
However, we think this decision is must reading in the general/special appearance substantive arena. This may expand the conduct – defensive or otherwise – that will not expose a defendant to waiver principles while challenging service on jurisdictional grounds.
Ninth Circuit Refrains from Deciding One Issue, Finds No Fee Entitlement After Without Prejudice Dismissal, and Cites Federal Case That May Vary From California State Law on an Inconvenient Forum Dismissal.
Sixth District Affirms Grant of $34,492 in Attorney's Fees.
Our first post was on May 11, 2008, surveying Profit Concepts Mgt., Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal.App.4th 950, 955-956 (2008). In that case, Justice Fybel of our local Santa Ana-based Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney's fees to a defendant who successfully moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Now, we can report that the Sixth District backed that result, squarely deciding that the trial court has jurisdiction to award fees in such a situation.
In Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars. Inc., Case No. H032027 (6th Dist. Sept. 25, 2008) (certified for publication) (Shisler II), the Sixth District held that a trial court still has power to rule upon a collateral motion for attorney's fees after granting a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Sixth District did note that the same result was reached in Profit Concepts, even though the jurisdictional issue was not explicitly considered. The appellate panel found support in Frank Annino & Sons Constr., Inc. v. McArthur Restaurant, Inc., 215 Cal.App.3d 353, 357 (1989) and Berard Construction Co. v. Municipal Court, 49 Cal.App.3d 710, 715-716 (1975), even though distinguishing Berard in one major respect—a distinction of Berard also noted previously by Justice Fybel in Profit Concepts.
So, in the end, defendant's fee award was affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.