Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV21547, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV21547, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21547 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Of Specially Appearing Defendant Redpoint County Mutual Insurance Company To Quash Service Of Summons And Complaint For Lack Of Jurisdiction.

The motion is granted.

The Court quashes service of the summons and Complaint, and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, only as to Specially Appearing Defendant REDPOINT COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Background

In its unverified Complaint, Plaintiff ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Plaintiff”) seeks a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it issued to Defendant GO MAPS, INC. (“Defendant Go Maps”) does not provide coverage for an arbitration that Defendant REDPOINT COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant Redpoint”) noticed against Defendant Go Maps, and that the insurance policy also does not cover other lawsuits between Defendant Go Maps and Defendant TOPA INSURANCE GROUP.

Specially Appearing Defendant Redpoint filed this motion to quash service of summons, arguing this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Legal Standard

When a defendant files a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, “the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th556, 568. A plaintiff must demonstrate personal jurisdiction based upon competent evidence, and not on allegations in an unverified complaint. Jewish Defense Org. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1054-1055. Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 445.

General jurisdiction exists when the defendant has “substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with California.” DVI, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1099.

Specific jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s “minimum contacts” with the state shows that the defendant purposefully directed its acts to the state, “that the cause of action [is] related to or arise or result from the acts or contacts in the forum, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum would be reasonable.” Muckle v. Superior Ct. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 227–28.

Analysis

General jurisdiction over a corporation is appropriate in the home forum of the corporation, i.e., where the corporation is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137. A defendant’s contacts with California are also “substantial, continuous, and systematic” for general jurisdiction, DVI, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th at 1099, if such contacts include maintaining an office and employees in California and marketing or selling products in California. Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc., (2006) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 1259. Defendant Redpoint’s evidence makes clear that general jurisdiction does not exist here. Defendant Redpoint is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. (Halbrook Decl., ¶ 3.) It has no office or employees in California, owns no property here, has no mailing address or phone number in California, and does not transact business in California. (Id., ¶¶ 4-11.) Plaintiff does not contest these facts and indeed, it does not make an argument for general jurisdiction at all.

While Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant Redpoint, it fails to cite any evidence to analyze the merits of this argument. Plaintiff improperly cites only allegations in the Complaint to support its arguments for jurisdiction. See Sheard v. Sup. Ct. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 210-12 (holding that an unverified complaint could not serve as substantial evidence for meeting a plaintiff’s burden to show personal jurisdiction in opposition to a motion to quash). Plaintiff therefore fails to meet its burden to establish personal jurisdiction. Jewish Defense Org., 72 Cal. App. 4th at 1054-1055. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s contention that specific jurisdiction exists based on Defendant Redpoint’s contract and interactions with Defendant Go Maps, a California corporation, such an argument is not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. “A contract with an out-of-state party does not automatically establish purposeful availment in the other party’s home forum.” Stone v. Tex. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 1043, 1048.

As a fallback position, Plaintiff requests that the Court provide Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery on Defendant Redpoint’s minimum contacts with California. “In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 100, 127. Plaintiff has made no such showing here. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery.