Under the post-2002 version of CCP 418.10(e), so long as the defendant files a timely motion to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, his simultaneous or later filing of an answer, demurrer, motion to strike, or any other action does not constitute a general appearance unless and until his motion to quash is denied and any mandate petition from denial of the motion is resolved.  So, the trial court erred in this case in denying defendant’s motion to quash simply because he filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike along with the motion to quash.  On the merits, the trial court should have granted the motion to quash since the plaintiff failed to introduce any evidence to meet its burden of showing defendant’s minimum contacts with California.

California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (per curiam); July 6, 2016; 2016 WL 3626708