## Facts

- Sukumar sued two Italian companies, Air Machine Com SRL (COM) and Panatta Sport SRL (Panatta), and U.S. defendants in San Diego Superior Court over alleged contract-related disputes involving exercise equipment.
- Sukumar alleged the Italian manufacturer sold equipment for the U.S. market, including California, through a U.S. sales agent.
- COM and Panatta specially appeared and moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 418.10(a).
- While the motions to quash were pending, COM and Panatta jointly served Sukumar with a statutory settlement offer under CCP § 998.
- The trial court denied the motions to quash, reasoning that serving the § 998 offer constituted a general appearance and waived any personal-jurisdiction objection.
- COM and Panatta sought writ relief, arguing CCP § 418.10(e)(1) prevented a waiver based on actions taken while a motion to quash is pending.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who has filed a motion to quash under CCP § 418.10(a) makes a general appearance, and waives a personal-jurisdiction objection, by serving a CCP § 998 settlement offer while the motion is pending.
2. Whether CCP § 418.10(e)(1)’s protection for “any other action” during the pendency of a motion to quash includes service of a CCP § 998 offer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held that serving a CCP § 998 offer after filing a motion to quash does not constitute a general appearance and does not waive a personal-jurisdiction objection.
- The court vacated the trial court’s order denying the motions to quash.
- The matter was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motions to quash without treating the § 998 offer as a waiver of the jurisdictional challenge.

## Legal Principles

- CCP § 418.10(e)(1) permits a defendant who moves to quash for lack of jurisdiction to take additional steps in the case without making a general appearance while the motion is pending.
- “Any other action” in CCP § 418.10(e)(1) is construed broadly to include litigation acts taken after a properly filed motion to quash, including procedural or tactical steps.
- A CCP § 998 settlement offer is a cost-shifting settlement mechanism and is not, by itself, an expression of consent to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
- Trial courts must apply CCP § 418.10(e)(1) to avoid finding an inadvertent waiver of a pending personal-jurisdiction challenge based solely on interim litigation conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that a defendant who has timely moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction may serve a CCP § 998 settlement offer while the motion is pending without making a general appearance or waiving the jurisdictional objection, and it ordered reconsideration of the motions to quash under that rule.


Air Mach. Com SRL v. Superior Ct., 186 Cal. App. 4th 414, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 (Ct. App. 2010)