QAI's Opposition to the Joint Motion and the Moving Parties' Reply Thereto
On February 10, 2000, QAI filed a response to the Joint Motion. QAI contends that by his conduct since the PHC, Coleman has made a general appearance in this proceeding and has therefore waived his objections to personal jurisdiction:
"Subsequent to the filing of his motion to quash, Coleman undertook several actions which constitute a general appearance before the Commission, thereby waiving any ground for objection to the Commission's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. First, by his own admission, Coleman engaged in settlement negotiations with CEI and CSD on January 21, 2000. California courts have specifically recognized that such conduct constitutes a general appearance . . .
"Second, Coleman's filing of the Joint Motion constitutes a general appearance before the Commission . . ." (QAI Response, pp. 4-5; emphasis in original, citations omitted.)
QAI thus concludes that "under the mandate of California statutory and case law," including such decisions as Estate of Heil (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1503 and Casa de Valley View Owner's Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, the Joint Motion must be denied.
On February 11, 2000, the moving parties filed a reply to QAI's opposition. In addition to arguing that the cases cited by QAI are distinguishable, the moving parties note that QAI's characterization of the January 21 settlement discussions as a waiver of Coleman's objections to in personam jurisdiction "is flatly inconsistent with the understanding and characterization of the discussions by those who participated in them," 3 and that "it would be anomalous, indeed, and quite unjust, for the Commission to hold that a party that has properly raised an objection to personal jurisdiction has waived that objection merely by asking the Commission [via the Joint Motion] how he might preserve it." (Joint Reply, pp. 2, 4.)
3 This argument is consistent with the moving parties' original description of the conditions under which the January 21 settlement discussions took place. The January 26 Joint Motion makes clear that all parties had agreed that Coleman's participation in the informal settlement discussions would not constitute a waiver of his objections to personal jurisdiction:"Counsel for Coleman expressly conditioned Coleman's participation in the confidential [settlement] discussions, and participation in any proceedings in which the parties might seek approval of a settlement, on such participation not constituting a waiver of Coleman's objection to personal jurisdiction. Counsel for Coleman is not authorized by Coleman to enter a general appearance or to waive Coleman's objection to personal jurisdiction. Counsel for CSD and CEI agreed to this condition of the settlement discussions." (Joint Motion, p. 3.)As the Joint Motion points out, Rule 51.6(c) appears to authorize me to accept this stipulation concerning the ground rules for the informal settlement discussions. (Id. at 5-6.)
