Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV45530 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV45530, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45530 Hearing Date: March 3, 2023 Dept: 28

Specially Appearing Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff Jeremy Leif Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Smart USA (“Smart”), Daimler AG (“Daimler”), Mercedes Benz, LLC (“MB”), Nicolas Hayek (“Hayek”), Salvador Antonio Espana (“Espana”) and Randall Scott Kissel (“Kissel”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and products liability.

On June 7, 2022, Espana filed an answer. On November 14, 2022, the Court dismissed Hayek. On December 7, 2022, MB filed an answer. On December 15, 2022, the Court dismissed Kissel and Smart, without prejudice.

On October 31, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG (“MBG”) filed a Motion to Quash Service for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, to be heard on March 3, 2023.

There is no currently set trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

MBG requests the Court quash the service of summons on Daimler.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff has the initial burden to establish valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.)

A defendant may file a motion to quash a service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over said defendant. CCP § 418.10 (a). A motion made under CCP § 418.10 does not constitute an appearance unless a court denies the motion.

Personal jurisdiction takes two forms—general and specific. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) General jurisdiction exists when a nonresident defendant has “substantial . . . continuous and systematic” contacts in the forum state. (Id.) General jurisdiction only exists when a defendant’s contacts with the forum state “are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home” there. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 122.) “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [citations.]; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of [the] defendant's contacts with the forum [citations.]; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice [citations.].” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (internal quotations omitted).)

Under California’s long-arm statute, California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitutions of California and the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions 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. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.) A court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation only where the corporation is “essentially at home” in the forum state. (Goodyear v. Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919.) A corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business are the paradigm bases for general personal jurisdiction. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.) The U.S. Supreme Court has stated “it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277.) “The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.” (T.A.W. Performance, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at 643.) It is essential that there be some act by which the foreign defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. (Ibid.)

“Although the defendant is the moving party and must present some admissible evidence (declarations or affidavits) to place the issue before the court (by showing the absence of minimum contacts with the state), the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a basis for jurisdiction (minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state) . . . .” (School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) “If the plaintiffs are able to make a 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. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1118)

CCP §413.10 outlines: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a summons shall be served on a person (c) Outside the United States, as provided in this chapter or as directed by the court in which the action is pending, or, if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice, as prescribed by the law of the place where the person is served or as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory. These rules are subject to the provisions of the Convention on the “Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents” in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention).”

Failure to comply with the Hague Convention renders the service void, even if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794. The Hague Convention provides specific procedures to accomplish service of process. Authorized modes of service are service through a central authority in each country; service through diplomatic channels; and service by any method permitted by the internal law of the country where the service is made. Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp. (1989) 889 F. 2d 172, 173.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff allegedly served John Montijo as a representative of Daimler/MBG on May 16, 2022. He was allegedly served at 330 N Brand Blvd, Ste 700 in Glendale, CA 91203. There is no indication of Plaintiff taking additional steps to effectuate service beyond delivery of the document.

MBG is a corporation with its primary place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. It is not registered, licensed or authorized to do business in California, does not maintain any property or officers in California, or maintain any bank accounts in California. As a German corporation, MBG must be served according to the Hague Convention; Plaintiff has not abided by the German regulations pursuant to the Hague Convention, as it has not served a translated complaint, summons and any other documents in German to a MBG representative. Failure to comply with the Hague Convention renders the service void; the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Specially Appearing Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. Service of summons and the complaint on Daimler is quashed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.