Judge Colin Leis, Case 22STCV20624 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Laurie Gorham, Dana Trenter, and Darren Kaplan, as Co-Trustees of the Steven L. Kaplan Trust

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

On July 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Laurie Gorham, Dana Trenter, and Darren Kaplan, as Co-Trustees of the Steven L. Kaplan Trust (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Yuchu Chiang Kaplan (“Yuchu”), Lee Evans, Sharon Teano Evans, Robert Evans (“Robert”), and Elisa Evans (“Elisa”), asserting causes of action for (1) financial abuse of an elder; (2) neglect and physical abuse of an elder; (3) conversion; (4) accounting; (5) restitution; (6) breach of contract; and (7) declaratory relief.

Yuchu is the surviving wife of Steven Kaplan, and the remaining Defendants are her adult children and children-in-law. Plaintiffs are Steven Kaplan’s biological children. Plaintiffs allege Defendants stole funds from the Steven L. Kaplan Trust (“Steven Kaplan Trust” or “Trust”).

On September 1, 2022, Defendants Robert and Elisa filed this motion to quash service of summons and complaint. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On January 23, 2023, Robert and Elisa filed a reply.

“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 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).)

“When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the existence of jurisdiction.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.) Plaintiffs must satisfy this burden by a preponderance of evidence. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

Defendants Robert and Elisa bring this motion on grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Robert and Elisa point out they live in Texas and were served with summons in Texas—thus the court lacks general jurisdiction. In addition, Robert and Elisa argue they have not directed any activity towards California—thus the court also lacks specific jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs concede for the purposes of opposing this motion that the court lacks general jurisdiction over Robert and Elisa. Plaintiffs, however, disagree that the court lacks specific jurisdiction. According to Plaintiffs, their claims against Robert and Elisa are related to Robert and Elisa’s purposeful availment of California benefits—specifically, residing within, and claiming ownership over, a Texas residence that Steven Kaplan’s California trust bought with California assets. Moreover, Robert and Elisa cannot prove that the exercise of jurisdiction over them would be unreasonable.

“General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.)

Plaintiffs do not offer evidence that Robert and Elisa are domiciled in California or have activities in California that are substantial, continuous, and systematic. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge that their opposition to this motion is focused on establishing specific jurisdiction—not general jurisdiction. (Opposition p. 8, fn. 3.) The court finds Plaintiffs have not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has general jurisdiction over Robert and Elisa.

Because the court does not have general jurisdiction over Robert and Elisa, the court must next determine whether it has specific jurisdiction. In the absence of general jurisdiction, a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction where a nonresident defendant has “minimum contacts” with the state, i.e.: (1) the nonresident defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum state; (2) the plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of or is related to defendant’s contacts with the forum state; and (3) exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with “fair play and substantial justice” (i.e., is reasonable under the circumstances). (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-78.)

i. Robert and Elisa Purposely Availed Themselves of the Benefits of a California Trust

As it relates to the first prong, for causes of action arising in tort, courts employ a variation of the “Calder Effects Test" to determine whether specific personal jurisdiction can be established. The Calder Effects Test, derived from Calder v. Jones, (1984) 465 U.S. 783, "requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant's knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 270.) "The purposeful availment inquiry...focuses on the defendant's intentionality. This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court's jurisdiction based on his contacts with the forum." (Id. at 269, internal quotes and citations omitted.)

Here, Plaintiffs offer evidence that Robert and Elisa directed their activities towards a California trust and should reasonably expect to be subject to California’s jurisdiction based on the benefits they allegedly converted from that trust. The evidence shows the Steven Kaplan Trust likely paid for Robert and Elisa’s Texas residence. (Gorham Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 3.) In addition, Laurie Gorham states that neither Steven or the Trust intended to gift the residence to Robert and Elisa, yet Robert and Elisa maintain the residence is their property to the exclusion of the Trust. (Id. ¶ 22.) Robert and Elisa should reasonably know that their conduct would cause harm to the Steven Kaplan Trust, and thus California as a forum state.

Robert and Elisa argue that any alleged wrongdoing on their part would have occurred in Texas, not California, and therefore there is no evidence to show that they directed any conduct in such a way that any foreseeable injury would be acutely felt, amplified, or caused by their contacts with California. The court disagrees. Jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because a defendant did not physically enter the forum State. (Burger King Corp., supra, 471 U.S. at 476.) More importantly, the foreseeable injury—in this case loss of Trust funds—was acutely felt by a California trust, and the foreseeable injury was caused by Robert and Elisa’s intentional contact with California’s administration and regulation of the Trust.

Put simply, Robert and Elisa have availed themselves of the benefits of California’s laws and protections by knowingly receiving—and insisting on the ownership of—California trust funds.[1]

ii. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Relate to Robert and Elisa’s Contacts with California

Robert and Elisa argue that Plaintiffs’ causes of action do not relate to their contacts with California because the acts they purportedly committed are limited to Texas. Robert and Elisa point out that the residence in dispute is in Texas, it was purchased and recorded in Texas, and Texas is where they now reside. Moreover, any alleged funds used to pay for repairs, home inspections, state property taxes, or computer equipment were received while they were living in Texas, and were therefore directed at Texas.

The argument is not persuasive. As noted, jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because a defendant did not physically enter the forum State. (Burger King Corp., supra, 471 U.S. at 476.) Furthermore, “[t]he plaintiff does not have to prove the truth of the allegations constituting the causes of action in order to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident parties.” (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 526, 533.) Plaintiffs’ causes of action include abuse of an elderly person living in California, and conversion from a California trust. Both are intentional torts—meaning both causes of action arise from intentional conduct aimed at a California resident and a California trust. Plaintiffs have yet to prove their claims. But Plaintiffs’ allegations and causes of action relate to Robert and Elisa’s purposeful contacts with California.

iii. The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Robert and Elisa Comports with Fair Play and Substantial Justice

“Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ [Citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 320.] Thus courts in ‘appropriate case[s]’ may evaluate ‘the burden on the defendant,’ ‘the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute,’ ‘the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,’ ‘the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,’ and the ‘shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’ [Citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292.] These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.” (Burger King Corp., supra, 471 U.S. at 476–477.)

Here, the court must weigh the burden on Robert and Elisa from having to litigate in California, versus California’s interest in adjudicating this dispute and Plaintiffs’ interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. The court acknowledges that Robert and Elisa reside in Texas, and thus there is a burden to having to litigate in California. However, Robert and Elisa used to reside in California (Gorham Decl., ¶ 11), and both Robert and Elisa admit they regularly visit Defendants Yuchu and Lee in California (Robert Decl., ¶ 6; Elisa Decl., ¶ 6.) Thus, the burden to Robert and Elisa from having to litigate here is less than it otherwise would be. On the other hand, California has a substantial interest in adjudicating this dispute to ensure the integrity of its laws and the integrity of trusts established under its laws. Finally, Plaintiffs will obtain the most convenient and effective relief in California, as the Steven Kaplan Trust was established under California law and thus California courts are best suited to fairly and effectively adjudicate this dispute.

Weighing the factors, the court finds that the exercise of jurisdiction over Robert and Elisa comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Robert and Elisa have availed themselves of California’s jurisdiction by purposely benefiting from a trust established under the laws of this state. Robert and Elisa’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint on grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them is therefore denied.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants Robert Evans and Elisa Evans’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is denied.

[1] In their reply papers, Robert and Elisa argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations “center around the actions and activities of third parties.” (Reply p. 4.) Robert and Elisa are ostensibly arguing that they are merely the passive receivers of funds from the Steven Kaplan Trust and thus cannot be subject to California’s jurisdiction. However, Robert and Elisa reasonably should have known where the funds were coming from. Because Robert and Elisa continue to insist on ownership of Trust funds, while the Trust is being administered, they are purposefully availing themselves of California’s laws and protections.

LAURIE GORHAM, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE STEvEN L. KAPLAN TRUST , et al., Plaintiffs, vs. YUCHU CHIANG KAPLAN , et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	22STCV20624

	Hearing Date:	January 26, 2023

	Time:	8:30 a.m.

	[Tentative] Order RE: motion TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT