Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV30163, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30163    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff Mary Hale filed this action against “Manager does 1-10.” The complaint asserts a cause of action for negligence based on the following facts: “Defendant refused to accept plaintiff’s mail-in deposit, violating plaintiff’s due process rights, and 14th amendment rights, causing plaintiff to suffer severe financial and emotional hardship.”

            On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to fictitious name, naming Neal Blinde as Doe 1.

            On January 30, 2024, Defendant Blinde filed the instant motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed her opposition on February 15, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10).” (Code Civ. Proc, § 410.50(a).) “[A] court acquires jurisdiction over a party by proper service of process or by that party's general appearance.” (In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, 547.) Actual notice of a lawsuit is not a substitute for proper service of process. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206.) Additionally, when the defendant is a nonresident, the following legal principles apply.

“Due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the following four situations: (1) where the defendant is domiciled in the forum state when the lawsuit is commenced; (2) where the defendant is personally served with process while he or she is physically present in the forum state; (3) where the defendant consents to jurisdiction; and (4) where the defendant has sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state, such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (Muckle v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 218, 226.)

A defendant may establish sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state in one of two ways. For a court to exercise general jurisdiction, the defendant must have contact with the forum state that is substantial, continuous, and systematic. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) In such a case, the cause of action need not be related to the defendant’s contact with the forum state. (Id. at p. 446.) For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the following elements must be met: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed themselves of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.)

When personal jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Mihlon v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 703, 710.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at p. 447.)

DISCUSSION

I. Proper Service

            “A summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.)

            Defendant resides in North Carolina and was served in Virginia. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not effectuate service by any means except mailing and that the mailing did not comply with the Code because Plaintiff failed to require a return receipt. Plaintiff’s opposition attaches a proof of service executed by nonparty Ramon Ortiz on February 13, 2024, wherein Mr. Ortiz avers that he sent the summons and complaint through first-class mail addressed to Neal Blinde at 1680 Capital One Dr., McLean, VA 22102. Plaintiff also attaches a certified mail receipt with the box checked for “Return Receipt (hardcopy).” This satisfies the requirements of Section 415.40.

II. Minimum Contacts

            Nonetheless, proper service alone does not confer jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Here, it is undisputed that Defendant was not domiciled in California when the lawsuit commenced, Defendant was not personally served in California, and Defendant does not consent to jurisdiction. (See Muckle, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 226.) Therefore, the issue is whether Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify personal jurisdiction. (Ibid.)

            As stated above, when jurisdiction is challenged, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist. (Mihlon, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at p. 710.) “The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts. It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

            Plaintiff’s opposition makes no attempt to satisfy this burden. Instead, Plaintiff argues that “[a] defendant may not use this type of motion to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in a civil complaint.” (Opp. 1:22-23.) Plaintiff argues that “[a] motion to quash under section 418.10 is a limited procedural tool to contest personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled.” (Opp. 2:3-5.)

However, a motion to quash based on lack of jurisdiction is not limited to defects in service. A court may lack jurisdiction for a number of reasons, only one of which is improper service. As outlined above, a court also lacks personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has insufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. Defendant’s motion does not challenge the truth of the allegations in the complaint; it challenges the Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant. Even assuming all of the allegations in the complaint are true, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with California. Therefore, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.   

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Neal Blinde’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.