Case Name: Tomack v. Ray Cammack Shows, Inc., et al.
Case No.: Orange County Superior Court, Case Number 04CC07252; Court of Appeal Case Nos. G036420 and G036580
Client: Far Fabbri S.R.L.
Result: Petitions for Writ of Mandate to Quash Service of Summons Granted


Sabaitis O’Callaghan is pleased to announce that it recently successfully argued two writ petitions before the California Court of Appeal. The writ petitions requested that the Court of Appeal overturn two Superior Court decisions holding that our client, Far Fabbri, S.R.L., was subject to personal jurisdiction in California.

This matter involves a portable amusement ride manufactured by Far Fabbri, an Italian corporate entity. The amusement ride was sold through a Dutch distributor to an American amusement ride operator named Ray Cammack Shows, Inc., which arranged for the ride to be transported to California for the 2002 Orange County Fair. At that fair, a company named Fabbri Amusements, Inc., Far Fabbri’s exclusive distributor in the United States, provided Ray Cammack Shows with training on how to operate the ride at the request of Far Fabbri. One year later, at the 2003 Orange County Fair, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when a piece of the amusement ride became detached and struck her in the head. Plaintiff, Traci Tomack, filed a Complaint in Orange County Superior Court against several parties, including Ray Cammack Shows and Fabbri Amusements. Thereafter, Ray Cammack Shows filed a cross-complaint against the Italian manufacturer, Far Fabbri. The plaintiff then also filed suit against Far Fabbri for product defects.

Upon receipt of service via the Hague Convention of the Summons on Ray Cammack’s Cross-Complaint and the plaintiff’s Complaint, our office filed Motions to Quash Service of the Cross-Complaint and Complaint. In the motions, we argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Far Fabbri. Specifically, we argued that the Court did not have general jurisdiction over Far Fabbri because it was a completely separate and independent entity from its exclusive distributor, which had some contact with California, and Far Fabbri lacked the necessary systematic and continuous contacts with the state. Our office argued that the Court also lacked specific jurisdiction because neither Ray Cammack Shows nor the plaintiff could show that Far Fabbri had availed itself of the benefits of the forum jurisdiction or that plaintiff’s injuries had some relation to Far Fabbri’s contacts with the State of California.

The Superior Court denied the motions and held that the Court had limited (or special) jurisdiction. The Superior Court held that Far Fabbri had, through its exclusive distributor Fabbri Amusements, purposely availed itself of contacts with the State of California with respect to the matter in controversy (i.e. the manufacture of the ride) and that plaintiffs’ causes of action arose out of Far Fabbri’s contact with the State of California.

After the Superior Court’s denial of the motions, our office filed Writs of Mandate requesting that the Court of Appeal overturn the Superior Court’s decisions. After our office participated in oral arguments before the Fourth Appellate District, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion, in which it held that Far Fabbri is not subject to the jurisdiction of California courts in this matter. In the opinion, the Court of Appeal found that Far Fabbri and Fabbri Amsuements were completely separate and independent entities, and therefore the conduct of Fabbri Amusements could not be imputed to Far Fabbri. The Court held that the “stream of commerce theory” argued by Ray Cammack Shows and plaintiff was inapplicable because the evidence presented by Far Fabbri showed that Far Fabbri’s sale of products in the United Stated was sporadic, insubstantial, and not directed to the California market. The Court found that we had adequately distinguished the facts of this matter from those that existed in the seminal cases of Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior Court and Bridgestone Corp. v. Superior Court, where jurisdiction over foreign companies was found to exist.

The Court of Appeal granted Far Fabbri’s Writs of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its prior orders and enter new orders granting both of Far Fabbri’s motions to quash service. The Court also ordered Plaintiff and Ray Cammack Shows to pay Far Fabbri’s costs.

If you would like more information regarding this matter or a full copy of the Court of Appeal’s opinion, please contact our office.