Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case Number: 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC SCOTT VS PERALES-HERRERA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 04/15/2024

Specially appearing Defendant Harvest Miles Transport, LLC ('Defendant')'s motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.

Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. See Cal. Evid. Code � 452(a).

Factual Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Mary L. Scott ('Plaintiff') is a California resident living in San Diego, CA. See Dolin Decl., � 4.

Defendant operates as a general freight transportation carrier providing land cargo transportation services. See Yaguchi Decl., � 6. Defendant is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business and physical address located at 13904 Mercury Drive, Laredo, TX, 78045. Ibid., � 5. Defendant Christian Francisco Perales-Herrera ('Mr. Perales-Herrera')'s residence is located at 197 Calle 14, Ramos Arizpe, Mexico. Ibid., � 7. On September 14, 2023, Mr. Perales-Herrera, who was employed by Defendant, was the driver and operator of a 2015 Kenworth Truck. Ibid. On that date, Mr.

Perales-Herrera picked up four forklifts from Defendant/Cross-Complainant Dirt Cheap, Inc. dba DCG Fulfillment ('Dirt Cheap')'s facility located at 11600 Philadelphia Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 91752. Ibid., � 8; Dolin Decl., � 6. The delivery destination for the forklifts was in Laredo, TX. See Yaguchi Decl., � 8.

While enroute to his destination, Mr. Perales-Herrera rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle, causing Plaintiff to suffer various injuries, including paralysis. See Dolin Decl., �� 4, 7.

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint against Mr. Perales-Herrera, Dirt Cheap, Echo Global Logistics, Inc. ('Echo') and Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence, and (2) negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. See ROA No. 1; Matian Decl., Ex. A; Dolin Decl., Ex. A. The Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Plaintiff was driving eastbound on Interstate-10 in Maricopa County, Arizona at the time of the accident. See Complaint, �� 16-17, 21. For its part, Defendant: (1) negligently and recklessly entrusted the subject vehicle to Mr. Perales-Herrera, and (2) negligently and recklessly hired, trained, supervised, and/or retained Mr. Perales-Herrera despite knowing his unfitness to perform the duties for which he was hired. Ibid., �� 26, 34. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with a copy of the summons and Complaint via substituted service. See Matian Decl., Ex. B. Defendant now moves to quash service of summons and the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Legal Analysis Under California's 'long arm' statute, California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115921 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCOTT VS PERALES-HERRERA [IMAGED] 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC nonresidents on any basis that is not inconsistent with the state and federal Constitutions. See Cal. Code Civ. P. � 410.10. The inquiry in California is whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident 'comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.' Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 855, 865. See also Sibley v. Sup. Ct. (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 442, 445 (California's long-arm statute 'manifests an intent to exercise the broadest possible jurisdiction, limited only by constitutional considerations.'). Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. See ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 198, 209.

A nonresident defendant may seek an order quashing service of summons owing to an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction of the court over him or her. See Cal. Code Civ. P. � 418.10(a)(1). Upon the filing of a motion to quash, 'the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.' In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 100, 110. The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdiction facts; rather, he or she must offer specific evidentiary facts allowing the court to independently conclude that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Ibid. If the plaintiff makes a sufficient showing of minimum contacts with the forum state, 'the burden shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case demonstrating that the exercise of jurisdiction by our courts would be unreasonable. [Citations.]' CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 1118 (quoting In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 111).

Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate Facts by a Preponderance of the Evidence Justifying the Exercise of General Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant '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.'' Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 445 (quoting Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 445 (1952)). In such instances, 'it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum.' Vons Companies, Inc., 14 Cal. 4th at 445-446 (quoting Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 143, 147). In other words, the nonresident defendant's 'contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.' Vons Companies, Inc. 14 Cal. 4th at 446 (citing Burnham v. Sup.

Ct. of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 618 (1990)).

The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendant. As set forth above, Plaintiff must show that Defendant's contacts with California are substantial, continuous, and systematic such that the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over Defendant would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice. Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing. The evidence shows that Defendant is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business and physical address located in Laredo, TX. See Yaguchi Decl., � 5. Furthermore, Defendant: (1) is not registered to do business in California; (2) does not engage in advertising or marketing specific to California; (3) has not designated an agent for service of process in California; (4) does not own, maintain, or lease any offices or other property in California; (5) does not employ personnel permanently located in California; and (6) does not keep or garage any of its trucks in California. Ibid., �� 9-14. Additionally, the average percentage of loads picked up or dropped off by Defendant in California between 2019 and 2023 is 5.12%. Ibid., � 15. The foregoing is insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

The United States Supreme Court has explained that there is a modern trend favoring a specific personal jurisdiction analysis over a general personal jurisdiction analysis, noting that 'general jurisdiction has come to occupy a less dominant place in the contemporary scheme.' Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 133 (2014). For corporations, only a 'limited set' of affiliations with a forum state will render a defendant amenable to general personal jurisdiction there. The 'paradigm' forums in which a corporation will be considered 'at home' and thus subject to general personal jurisdiction are: (1) its place of incorporation, and (2) its principal place of business. Ibid., at 137. Toward that end, general personal jurisdiction is not available in every state in which the corporation engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business; rather, the inquiry 'is whether that corporation's Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115921 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCOTT VS PERALES-HERRERA [IMAGED] 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.' Ibid., at 138-139. In this case, the evidence shows that while a portion of Defendant's business has occurred continuously in California over the past five years, this is insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction given the substantial business Defendant conducts outside of California.

Ibid., at 136-139; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 929 (2011); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984); BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 581 U.S. 402, 405-407 (2017).

Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this matter.

Plaintiff Has Demonstrated that the Court May Exercise Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant 'Specific jurisdiction results when the defendant's contacts with the forum state, though not enough to subject the defendant to the general jurisdiction of the forum, are sufficient to subject the defendant to suit in the forum on a cause of action related to or arising out of those contacts.' Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.

(2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 556, 569-570. In analyzing specific jurisdiction, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. See Zehia v. Sup. Ct. (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 543, 552. See also HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1167 ('Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged.'). 'A nonresident defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction if three requirements are met: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.' Burdick v. Sup. Ct.

(2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 8, 18 (citing Pavlovich, 29 Cal. 4th at 269). 'The purposeful availment inquiry . .

. focuses on the defendant's intentionality. [Citation.] 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.' Pavlovich, 29 Cal. 4th at 269 (citing U.S. v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 623-624 (1st Cir.

2001)). Purposeful availment occurs where the nonresident defendant: (1) purposefully directs its activities at residents of the forum; (2) purposefully derives benefit from its activities in the forum; (3) creates a substantial connection with the forum; (4) deliberately has engaged in significant activities within the forum; or (5) has created continuing obligations between itself and residents of the forum.' Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1054, 1063.

As to minimum contacts, the United States Constitution permits a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient 'minimum contacts' with the forum such that the lawsuit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' See Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 258, 265 (citing International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement et al., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 'The 'substantial connection' [citations] between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.

[Citations.]' DVI, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 1080, 1090 (quoting Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Sup. Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987)). Under the minimum contacts test, the court must weigh the specific facts of each case to determine whether the requisite 'affiliating circumstances' are present.

See Pavlovich v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 268 (citing Kulko v. California Sup. Ct., 436 U.S. 84, 92 (1978)).

The court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied her initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Toward that end, the court finds that Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 143 ('Cornelison') is apposite and controlling. In Cornelison, the plaintiff was a California resident whose husband was killed in a highway collision with the defendant's truck in Nevada. The defendant was a resident and domiciliary of Nebraska. For the seven years preceding the accident, the defendant was engaged in the business of hauling goods by truck in interstate commerce, making roughly 20 trips per year to California. The accident occurred while Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115921 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCOTT VS PERALES-HERRERA [IMAGED] 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC the defendant was enroute to California. The plaintiff filed a complaint in California alleging that her husband's death was caused by the defendant's negligence. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff appealed.

The California Supreme Court, en banc, reversed. The Court first found that the defendant's activities in California, namely the 20 trips per year into the state to conduct business, an independent contractor relationship with a California broker, and a Public Utilities Commission license, were not so substantial or wide-ranging as to justify general personal jurisdiction over the defendant to adjudicate all matters regardless of their relevance to the plaintiff's cause(s) of action. The Court, however, did find that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was appropriate. The Court found a substantial nexus between the plaintiff's claim(s) and the defendant's activities in California given that the defendant frequented the state almost twice a month for seven years, was not far from California at the time of the accident, and was coming to California to both drop off and receive merchandise for delivery elsewhere. The accident arose from the driving of the truck, which activity was the essential basis of the defendant's contacts with California. Such is the case here. As in Cornelison, the evidence shows that Defendant is a resident of Texas and had an employee involved in an accident with a California resident in Arizona while transporting goods from California to Texas. While not sufficient to warrant the exercise of general personal jurisdiction, the fact that Defendant has continuously engaged in picking up and/or delivering loads to California over the past five years shows a significant nexus with California. Moreover, Defendant's business relationships with California entities such as Echo and Dirt Cheap demonstrate sufficiently that Defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefit of doing business in California.

Plaintiff's causes of action relate to Defendant's connections with California because, like the defendant in Cornelison, Mr. Perales-Herrera was driving a truck from Jurupa Valley, CA to Laredo, TX, which activity was the essential basis for Defendant's contacts with California.

The burden thus shifts to Defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden. In assessing reasonableness, courts consider various factors, including 'the burden on the defendant of appearing in the forum, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the claim, the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief within the forum, judicial economy, and 'the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.'' Vons Companies, Inc., 14 Cal. 4th at 448 (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 477).

In this case, Defendant argues that the burden of defending this action in California is significant given that: (1) Defendant is based out of Laredo, TX; (2) the persons most knowledgeable regarding Defendant's business and transactions are residents of Laredo, TX; (3) the trailer involved in the incident is located in Texas; (4) the other parties involved in this action, each of whom is a potential plaintiff, are located in Arizona; and (5) Arizona is a more appropriate alternative forum. The court respectfully disagrees. The mere fact that Defendant is out-of-state is insufficient to meet the reasonableness standard. See Moncrief v. Clark (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 1000, 1008. While Defendant undoubtedly will be burdened by litigating this case in California, it provides no evidence that it will be at a severe disadvantage in comparison to Plaintiff to due its location. See Dongxiao Yue v. Wenbin Yang (2021) 62 Cal. App. 5th 539, 550 (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 478). Moreover, Defendant, at this stage, is merely speculating that other parties in Arizona will file suit. The court will not grant the motion based on such hypotheticals. Finally, and importantly, California 'has a manifest interest in providing a local forum for its residents to redress injuries inflicted by out-of-state defendants.' Dongxiao Yue, 62 Cal. App. 5th at 550 (quoting Integral Development Corp. v. Weissenbach (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 576, 591).

Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this matter. Defendant, for its part, has failed to establish that the exercise of such jurisdiction would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the court denies Defendant's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the court denies Defendant's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115921 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCOTT VS PERALES-HERRERA [IMAGED] 37-2024-00004521-CU-PA-NC This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, June 28, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of June 28, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115921