Cohen IP Law Group Secures Dismissal in California Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Share:
Michael N. Cohen
Cohen IP Law Group Secures Dismissal in California Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Cohen IP Law Group successfully obtained a dismissal in a California consumer class action “strike-through” lawsuit after the Los Angeles Superior Court granted a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Related Case Win:
Cohen IP previously secured a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a patent declaratory judgment action. Read more here »
The plaintiff alleged false reference pricing through an e-commerce website and attempted to bring claims under California’s False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501). The plaintiff argued that purported “phantom discounts” on a consumer product violated state law.
Cohen IP Law Group filed a motion to quash, on the basis that the defendant company was based outside of California and its connection to California was at best minimal and incidental. The Court’s required, jurisdictional discovery reenforced that the Defendant did not intentional, or at all, engage in any targeted marketing or have any significant or systematic presence in California. Rather, any sales to California residents were minimal and the result of website accessibility rather than intentional business conduct.
The Court concluded and found that the company’s activities with California were “random, isolated, or fortuitous” and insufficient to establish purposeful availment. The Court cited both the Ninth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. (2025) and the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Thurston v. Fairfield Collectibles (2020), holding that incidental online sales are not enough to rise to the level of “doing business” in the state.
As such, on August 19, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash and dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
“This ruling is a significant victory for out-of-state businesses facing meritless forum-shopping lawsuits in California,” said Michael N. Cohen, founder of Cohen IP Law Group. “The Court recognized that incidental online sales to California residents do not create the kind of substantial, continuous, or targeted contacts necessary to hale an out-of-state company into California courts.”
Cohen IP Law Group regularly defends clients against improper claims in intellectual property, advertising, and unfair competition matters. This decision underscores the firm’s expertise in successfully challenging personal jurisdiction in both state and federal courts.
Lead Counsel for Defendant was Michael N. Cohen of Cohen IP Law Group, PC. Please contact the firm at info@cohenip.com for a copy of the Order of the decision in Gonzales v. Sofasco Distributing, LLC, Case No. 25STCV02342.
FAQs About Motions to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
What is a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction?
It is a motion moving the court to dismiss a lawsuit on the basis that the defendant has insufficient ties to the state.
When will a court dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?
When the defendant’s connections to the state are so minimal, such that, they are not purposefully directed towards the forum.
Can a single online purchase establish jurisdiction in California?
Generally not. Courts will require deliberate, systematic activity in the state. Random and isolated purchases will typical not be enough.
Why is this ruling important?
It reinforces the concept that business located outside California may be able to defend itself against Plaintiffs’ from forum shopping. It may acta as a safeguard to prevent lawsuits in the state based on random incidental internet sales.
