Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 24STCV27787, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27787    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 26

BACKGROUND

Defendant First Community Bank (“Defendant”) is incorporated and headquartered in the state of Virginia. (Bechler Decl. at ¶ 2.) Defendant operates its business only in Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 3.) It does not promote or conduct any of its services or business in California. (Id. at ¶ 4.) It does not solicit or engage in consumer banking services in California or to California residents. (Ibid.)

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff Kuei Shen (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant for multiple causes of action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant William Van Delft (“Van Delft”) defrauded him from thousands of dollars for an alleged probate inheritance. (Complaint, p. 5, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that he performed a wire transfer to a First Community Bank account in the amount $19,000.00. (Complaint, p. 10, ¶ 52.) Plaintiff’s bank statement, which is included as an exhibit in his complaint, shows that he performed a wire transfer on December 11, 2023, from a Bank of America account to a First Community account for “BVD” in the amount of $14,757.00. (Complaint, Exhibit D.) Plaintiff further alleges that BVD Law Office is a law firm controlled by Van Delt. (Compliant, p. 2-3, ¶ 3.)

On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff sent a certified mailed envelope containing the summons and complaint in this matter to 29 College Drive, Bluefield, Virginia 24605. (Bechler Decl. at ¶ 5; Plaintiff’s January 16, 2025 Envelope attached as Exhibit A.) As Plaintiff did not address his envelope to any particular person, his envelope was not forwarded to any corporate officer, manager, or agent authorized to receive the summons and complaint on behalf of First Community Bank. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has never been a client of First Community Bank. (Id. at ¶ 6.) First Community Bank never solicited any business from Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

             On February 25, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 29, 2025. Defendant filed a reply on June 3, 2025. 

DISCUSSION

            Defendant asserts that it does not have sufficient minimum contacts in California to support personal jurisdiction over it in California. In the alternative, Defendant requests that this Court quash Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint due to improper service.

Notice of Motion

            As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s notice of motion stated that the date of the hearing was June 17, 2025 rather than June 10, 2025. However, Plaintiff appeared at the March 11, 2025 case management conference where this Court advanced the hearing for this Motion from July 17, 2025 to June 10, 2025.  Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel gave notice of the June 10, 2025, hearing date.  Also, since Plaintiff was able to file an opposition, the merits of the motion will be considered.

Personal Jurisdiction

            For a California court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state as to not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Ent., Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 32.) Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant can be general or specific. The touchstone of general and specific jurisdiction rests on purposeful availment, which ensures that a defendant will not be “haled into a jurisdiction solely as the result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts’….” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, “[t]he burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that minimum contacts exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1986) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 533.)

            Here, there is no general jurisdiction because Defendant is a corporation that does not have its principal place of business in California. Defendant First Community Bank (“Defendant”) is incorporated and headquartered in the state of Virginia. (Bechler Decl. at ¶ 2.) Defendant operates its business only in Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

            There is no specific jurisdiction because there is no evidence of purposeful availment. Defendant has no banking offices in California and purposefully limits its banking activities to just four states, none of which are in California. (Belcher Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Moreover, the controversy in this matter did not arise from First Community Bank’s contacts in California. First Community Bank never solicited any business from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff is not a client of First Community Bank nor has he ever been a client of First Community Bank. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has minimum contacts because it does business virtually via telemarketing and wire fraud. Plaintiff does not, however, provide any evidence that Defendant targeted California in any way. Plaintiff’s unilateral transfer of funds to Defendant is insufficient to establish purposeful availment by Defendant. (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 298 citing to Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 1239-1240 (“ ‘unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirements of contact with the form State.’”) Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a valid basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Improper Service

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40, a party may effectuate service of the summons and complaint by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to an out-ofstate corporate defendant through first-class mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested. Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10 provides, in pertinent part, that a “summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to … (a) [t]he person designated as agent for service of process … [or] the president or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” (Code Civ. Proc. Section 415.40.)

Here, Plaintiff failed to properly serve Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40. According to the Proof of Service filed by Plaintiff on March 10, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant by mail. Although Plaintiff mailed the summons and complaint to First Community Bank, Plaintiff failed to address the summons and complaint to any person. Yet, Plaintiff does not address this issue in his opposition. Therefore, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the summons was actually delivered to a person authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10.

Accordingly, and in the alternative, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper service.

            Defendant’s counsel to give notice.