Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, PC
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging a tort claim arising out of injuries suffered in California and retained a Virginia-based law firm with Virginia-licensed lawyers to represent her in negotiating a settlement with the pertinent federal agency's lawyers in Arizona. At issue is whether California may exert specific jurisdiction over the firm and its lawyers if plaintiff sues them for malpractice.
The Court of Appeal concluded that California may not exert jurisdiction over the law firm and its lawyers because the law firm and its lawyers did nothing to purposefully avail themselves of the benefits of doing business in California, and the allegedly bad advice underlying the malpractice lawsuit was not sufficiently related to the firm's and its lawyers' contacts with California. Because plaintiff did not carry her burden of establishing either of the first two requirements of specific jurisdiction, the court had no occasion to determine whether California's exertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order quashing service of summons on these defendants and dismissing plaintiff's malpractice suit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.