Lg electronics, inc., and nineteen other foreign companies participated in the global market for cathode ray tube (crt) products, which were integrated as components in consumer goods, including television sets. These goods were sold for many years in high volume in the miller, roger leroy. Cengage advantage books: business law today, the essentials: text and summarized cases (mindtap course list) (page 72). South-western college/west. Kindle edition.

No. the motion should not be granted because the business was done in Washington and hence, fall under Washington's jurisdiction.

Explanation:

Here is the complete question:

LG Electronics, Inc., and nineteen other foreign companies participated in the global market for cathode ray tube (CRT) products, which were integrated as components in consumer goods, including television sets. These goods were sold for many years in high volume in the United States, including the state of Washington. Later, the state filed a suit in a Washington state court against LG and the others, alleging a conspiracy to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTs in violation of a state consumer protection statute. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should this motion be granted? Explain.

From the information that have been given in the question, we are informed that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The motion should not be granted because the business was done in Washington and hence, fall under Washington's jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion should not be dismissed.

answer(eu) is the correct answer;