Department 58

Hearing Date: November 1, 2024

Case Name: Shatara Wright v. Michael Payne

Case No.: 22STCV28187

Motion: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant Michael Payne

Responding Party: Plaintiff Shatara Wright [NO OPPOSITION]

Tentative Ruling: The motion is granted.

Background

Plaintiff Shatara Wright (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Michael Payne (“Defendant”) on August 29, 2022. She has yet to file a proof of service.

On October 7, 2024, Defendant moved to quash service of the summons on Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant filed a proof of service showing he timely served Plaintiff with his moving papers via overnight express mail. Plaintiff filed no opposition.

Legal Standard

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion” to “quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her,” or to “dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

Although the defendant is the moving party, “[w]hen a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis for the exercise of jurisdiction.” (Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1259.) “This may be done through presentation of declarations, with opposing declarations received in response.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568, citations omitted.)

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are denied, as they are unnecessary for resolution of the motion.

/ / /

Discussion

a. General and Specific Jurisdiction

Defendant’s motion and exhibits demonstrate the Court lacks personal jurisdiction for purposes of this dispute.

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial ... continuous and systematic.’ [Citations.].” (Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445–446.)

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [Citation] and the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” a defendant's contacts with the forum.’” (Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at 446.)

Defendant resides in Arizona and has resided there since 2020, and he intends to remain there. (Payne Decl., ¶ 3.) He has not lived in California since 2010. (Id., ¶ 7.) He does no business in California. (Id., ¶ 5.) He maintains a California medical license but does not practice medicine here. (Id., ¶ 6.) He lacks continuous, systematic contacts with this jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed no opposition that might establish specific jurisdiction. Her complaint is unverified and largely devoid of facts. To the extent it raises facts relevant to jurisdiction, it alleges Plaintiff “owns real property in California” and “[the] property” (not Defendant) “engages in the business of property rental.” (Compl., ¶ 2.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s business license are unsworn and refuted. (See Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not specify what real property Defendant purportedly owns, and Defendant states the parties had only one marital real property asset in California, with title in Plaintiff’s name. (Payne Decl., ¶ 11.) Their marriage is since dissolved. (Ibid.)

Defendant’s declaration demonstrates that, to the extent any dispute exists at all, it does not arise from any of his contacts with this State, if any.

Most importantly: although Defendant’s papers show the Court lacks jurisdiction over him in this dispute, he does not need to make this showing at all. Upon Defendant’s challenge, it is Plaintiff’s burden to show the Court has jurisdiction. Her complaint is unverified, and she filed no opposition. There are no facts before the Court that might justify jurisdiction. She did not carry her burden. Conclusion Defendant's motion motion to quash summons upon Frg granted.

Conclusion

Defendant's motion motion to quash summons upon Defendant Michael Payne is granted.