Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV17605, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17605    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Jaime Omar Guzman and Grevil Guzman Castellanos (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Driven Brands Holdings, Inc., IMO US Georgia, LLC, IMO US South, LLC, Tony Randall Higgins, and Does 1 to 10 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident. The complaint states the accident occurred in Cobb County, Georgia.

Specially Appearing Defendants Driven Brands Holdings, Inc., IMO US Georgia, LLC, and IMO US South, LLC (Defendants) now move to quash service of the summons under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, arguing the Court lacks jurisdiction. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:¿ (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)¿“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]”¿(Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿“[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.”¿(Id. at 1441-1442.)¿When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”¿(Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)¿ 

California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California.¿(Code Civ. Proc., section 410.10.) Accordingly, a California court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has not been served with process within the State comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the State that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 444-45; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) 

California recognizes two ways in which the constitutional “minimum contacts” requirement may be satisfied. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so systematic and so continuous as to make it consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum, even if the cause of action is unrelated to the contacts.¿(Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310; Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.)  

The relevant period for determining the existence of minimum contacts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction is that which existed when the cause of action arose. (Boaz v. Byle & Co. (1995) 40 CA4th 700, 717.) “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.117, 137.) A domicile is the place where one resides with the intent to remain indefinitely. (DeYoung v. DeYoung (1946) 27 C3d 521, 524.) Due to the intent requirement, a person may only have one domicile at a time. (Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 CA2d 1249, 1258.) 

A nonresident may be subject to specific jurisdiction if: (1) the nonresident has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; (2) the controversy arises out of the nonresident’s contacts with the state; and (3) it would be fair and just to assert jurisdiction. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.) 

A court may consider factors including: 

1.      The extent to which the lawsuit relates to defendant’s activities or contacts with California 

2.      The availability of evidence and the location of witnesses 

3.      The availability of an alternative forum in which the claim could be litigated  

4.      The relative costs and burdens to the litigants of bringing or defending the action 

5.      State policy in providing a forum for this particular litigation 

Where personal jurisdiction is challenged, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. (Thomas J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d at p. 148.) The burden is established by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.” (Ziller Electronics Lab Gmbh v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 1222, 1232-1233; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.) 

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue they are entities organized in the state of Delaware, with their principal place of business in North Carolina. (Motion, 1.) Defendants argue they conduct no business in California and that the subject incident took place in Georgia.

The proofs of service filed for each of the three Defendants show that service was mailed to addresses in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama. Because Defendants challenge personal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have the burden to show the jurisdictional criteria are met. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and therefore have failed to meet their burden.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to quash service of the summons is GRANTED.

Specially appearing Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.