Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01264056, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Specially appearing Defendants Salam Hamdan’s and Riad Abdullah's motions to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction are granted.
Evidentiary Objections
Hamdan’s evidentiary objections to Joseph Dib’s declaration:
· Sustained: Paragraphs 6-26 and Exhibits A-F
· Overruled: Paragraph 4
Hamdan’s objections to Monica Dib’s declaration:
· Sustained: Paragraphs 6-8, 10, 12 and Exhibits 2, 4, 6
· Overruled: Paragraph 9 and Exhibit 3
Abdullah’s objections to Joseph Dib’s declaration:
· Sustained: Paragraphs 6-31 and Exhibits A-C
· Overruled: Paragraph 4
Abdullah’s objections to Monica Dib’s declaration:
· Sustained: Paragraphs 6-9, 11-14 and Exhibits 2-3
· Overruled: Paragraph 10 and Exhibits 1-4
Merits
California courts “may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of 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. [Citation.] [¶] Under the minimum contacts test, an essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant's activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in that State. [Citation.] [T]he minimum contacts test . . . is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite affiliating circumstances are present. [Citation.]” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268, internal quotation marks omitted.) The relevant period during which minimum contacts must have existed is when the cause of action arose rather than when the complaint was filed or served. (Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717; see Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Fiscus (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1239-1241.)
“Under the minimum contacts test, ‘[p]ersonal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.’ [Citation].” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 (Snowney).) General jurisdiction applies when a non-resident’s commercial activities impact California on a substantial, continuous and systematic basis. (Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) If a non-resident’s contacts are insufficient for general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction may apply if the plaintiff’s claims relate to the non-resident’s activities in the forum state. (Ibid.) “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits [Citation]; (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] [Citation.]” (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1062, internal quotation marks omitted.)
When personal jurisdiction is challenged by a non-resident defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Snowney, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1062.) The plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance that all the jurisdictional requirements are met. (Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 294.) “The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222.) If the parties’ declarations on the jurisdictional facts conflict, it is up to the court to decide which to believe. (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313.) If the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Doe v. Damron (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 684, 690.)
1. Hamdan
Hamdan argues that California does not have general or specific jurisdiction over him. He has minimal personal contact with California that does not reach the level necessary for general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction also does not exist because he never committed any affirmative act related to Plaintiffs’ claims directed towards California or could constitute a “purposeful availment of benefits” in California. Hamdan asserts he was named in place of Doe 6 and there are no allegations of any specific acts by Doe 6 in the complaint.
In support of his motion, Hamdan submitted a declaration which states: (1) since December 1979, he has been a resident of Arizona; (2) he has never lived in California, never has had a license or ID card from California; (3) he does not, and never has, owned personal or real property in California; (4) he does not own any business in California; (5) he does not have clients or work in California; (6) he has not, and does not, solicit business in California; (7) he has never had a telephone listing in California; (8) he has never opened a bank account in California; (9) he has visited California approximately three times in the past five years for family vacations to amusement parks; (10) he has never visited Humboldt County; (11) he does not, and has never, worked in the cannabis industry, including obtaining licensing; (11) he has never met nor spoken to Plaintiff Joseph Dib, nor know Dib’s phone number and has never texted him; (12) he was never served with documents in this case in California; (13) it would be a great physical burden for him to defend this lawsuit in California, as his health requires him to be in Arizona as much as possible; (14) he is physically unable to tolerate long drives or plane trips; (15) in 2021, he had open heart surgery and since that procedure, he gets car and plane sick; (16) he also suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes, takes multiple medications every day and is tired; and (17) he is willing to provide personal and other information under seal to the court to confirm any information. (Hamdan Decl., at ¶¶ 4-19 [ROA 213].)
In opposition, Plaintiffs Dib and R &R Life is Amazing, LLC argue there is general jurisdiction over Hamdan because he served as an agent for service of process for Thaher Holdings LLC, a California LLC. Hamdan also sold real property located in Buena Park, California as a member of K&A Kingdom Holdings LLC, a defendant in this case. K&A’s principal office is in California. Hamdan is also listed as having an address in California at 22436 Alcudia in Mission Viejo, which is the home address for Sad Thaher, Defendant Omar Daher’s brother.
Plaintiffs also argue there is specific jurisdiction over Hamdan because he purposefully injected himself into the business deal in California. He was an active participant active participant in the fraudulent scheme to defraud Dib, as Hamdan was one of the individuals tasked with obtaining the necessary licenses/permits in Humboldt County, as well as with monitoring the business in Humboldt County, including purchasing seed, taking care of fertilization, transportation and sale of the Product, depositing the funds from the sale, and distributing the funds.
Here, Plaintiffs’ evidence is largely inadmissible. Almost all the objections to Plaintiff Dib’s declaration have been sustained. After the evidentiary objections, the only remaining information from Plaintiff Dib’s declaration is the background regarding how he met Defendant Omar Daher. As for Monica Dib’s declaration, almost all the objections are also sustained. After the evidentiary objections, the only remaining evidence from Monica Dib’s declaration are the excerpts from Defendant Hamdan’s deposition and a copy of a grant deed and full reconveyance involving real property at 8217 Poinsettia Drive, Buena Park, CA 90620.
The relevant deposition excerpts show: (1) Hamdan visited Daher in California ten times and in the last five years, three times; (2) during the last three visits, they were for an engagement party, a vacation with his wife, and he cannot remember the reason for the third visit; (3) Hamdan met an individual named Khaled Daher, Defendant Daher’s brother, in 1991 in California; (4) Hamdan’s met Khaled in California twice; (5) Hamdan denied being involved in the growing of marijuana with Daher or at the Bridgeville Property; (6) Hamdan admitted to presently being a the “service manager” of K&A Kingdom Holdings LLC; (7) K&A’s principal place of business is in Wyoming; (8) Hamdan sold a Buena Park property for Thaher Holdings but does not know the address for it; (9) Hamdan signed for Khaled regarding that Buena Park property about six months ago because Khaled asked him to; (10) Hamdan signed the document in Arizona; (11) Hamdan signed a grant deed in which K&A transferred property to 8217 Poinsettia Drive LLC; (12) Hamdan also signed a full reconveyance for the Buena Park property for K&A on November 11, 2022; (13) Hamdan does not know why he signed the reconveyance, he did it because Khaled asked him to sign it for him; and (14) a doctor has not told him that he is not allowed to travel. (M. Dib Decl., at ¶ 9, Exh. 3, Hamdan depo, at pp. 39, 49, 60, 63, 71-73, 91-92, 123.)
The copy of the grant deed shows that it involved property at 8217 Poinsettia Drive in Buena Park and was signed by Hamdan on November 2, 2022 in Arizona as a member of K&A Kingdom Holdings, LLC, a Wyoming LLC. The copy of the full reconveyance of the same property shows that it was signed by Hamdan as an authorized signor for K&A Kingdom on November 11, 2022 in Arizona. (M. Dib decl., ¶ 11, Exh. 5.)
The admissible evidence presented by Plaintiffs is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Defendant Hamdan. Defendant Hamdan showed that he resides in Arizona and was served with process in Arizona. He also showed that he does not work or conduct business in California and does not own real or personal property in California. While Defendant Hamdan signed the grant deed and reconveyance document regarding the transfer of a property in Buena Park, he signed those documents in Arizona as a member of a Wyoming LLC. Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant Hamdan engages in commercial activities that impact California on a substantial, continuous, and systematic basis for general jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' admissible evidence is likewise insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over Hamdan. Hamdan was named in place of Doe 6 but there are no allegations against Doe 6 in the Complaint, other than what is in paragraph 10. Even if all the claims are directed against Doe 6, there is no admissible evidence to show that Hamdan participated in the alleged business deal, traveled to California for it, or received proceeds from it. Defendant Hamdan denies being involved in the alleged business deal and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
In sum, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that minimum contacts exist between Hamdan and California to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, Defendant Hamdan’s motion to quash service of summons is granted. The service of summons and Complaint on specially appearing Defendant Salam Hamdan erroneously sued as Salaam Hamdam is hereby ordered quashed.
2. Abdullah
Abdullah argues that California does not have general or specific jurisdiction over him. He is a resident of Arizona since 1989 and was also served in Arizona. His minimal personal contact with California does not reach the level necessary for general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction also does not exist because he never committed any affirmative act related to Plaintiffs’ claims directed towards California or could constitute a “purposeful availment of benefits” in California. The allegations against Abdullah in the Complaint are primarily in paragraph 40, which alleges that he advised Plaintiff that $9M had been deposited into his account in Arizona and that he would wire $4.5M to Plaintiff once Daher authorized release of the funds. The Complaint does not allege that Abdullah entered into any business transaction, or oral or implied-in-fact agreement with either plaintiff, or made any affirmative misrepresentations related to the transfer of properties, requests for monies from Plaintiff, or negotiated any deal with Plaintiffs. There is no allegation that Daher authorized release of the funds to Plaintiff.
In support of his motion, Abdullah submitted a declaration which states: (1) since 1989, he has been a resident of Arizona; (2) he has never lived in California, never has had a license or ID card from California; (3) he does not, and never has, owned personal or real property in California; (4) he does not own any business in California and never maintained a place of business in California; (5) he does not have clients or work in California; (6) he has not, and does not, solicit business in California; (7) he has never had a telephone listing in California; (8) he has never opened a bank account in California; (9) he has visited California approximately five times in his life; (10) he has never visited Humboldt County; (11) he does not, and has never, worked in the cannabis industry, including obtaining licensing; (11) he has never met nor spoken to Dib, nor know Dib’s phone number and has never texted him; (12) he has never received any checks or monies from either plaintiff; (13) he was never served with documents in this case in California; (14) it would be a great burden for him to defend this lawsuit in California because his work and home obligations require him in Arizona as much as possible; (15) he lives with his four children and homemaker wife; and (16) he is willing to provide his personal information under seal to the court to confirm any information. (Abdullah Decl., at ¶¶ 4-19.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Abdullah was an active participant in the fraudulent scheme to defraud Dib. Abdullah was one of the individuals tasked with obtaining the necessary licenses/permits in Humboldt County, as well as with monitoring the business in Humboldt County, including purchasing seed, taking care of fertilization, transportation and sale of the Product, depositing the funds from the sale, and distributing the funds. Plaintiffs argue there is general jurisdiction over Abdullah because he had a reported address of 2422 Sullivan in Irvine as of August 2021, during a relevant time period. They also argue there is specific jurisdiction over Abdullah. He purposefully injected himself into the business deal in California, by sending multiple text messages to Plaintiff Dib about this business deal and receiving the sale proceeds from the Product.
Here, Plaintiffs primarily rely on multiple text messages that Dib claims Abdullah sent him regarding the alleged business deal. However, that evidence, like most of Plaintiffs’ evidence, is inadmissible. Dib has never met Abdullah, and Plaintiffs never established that the phone number Dib was texting back and forth with belonged to Abdullah. Almost all the objections to Plaintiff Dib’s declaration are sustained. After the evidentiary objections, the only remaining information from Plaintiff Dib’s declaration is the background regarding how he met Daher. As for Monica Dib’s declaration, almost all the objections to it are also sustained. After the evidentiary objections, the only remaining evidence from Monica Dib’s declaration are the excerpts from Defendant Abdullah’s deposition.
The relevant deposition excerpts show: (1) Abdullah met Defendant Doran Andry at a restaurant in California about 15 years ago with Daher; (2) he went to California for Daher’s father funeral; (3) he met Hamdan in Arizona about 25-27 years ago; (4) he never went to the Buena Park property; (5) he denies being involved in any business dealing with Daher; and (6) he denies receiving any money in 2022 for the sale of marijuana or from Daher. (M. Dib Decl., at ¶ 10, Exh. 4, Abdullah Depo., at pp. 30, 34, 42, 82-83, 88-89.)
The admissible evidence presented by Plaintiffs is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Abdullah. Abdullah showed that he resides in Arizona and was served with process in Arizona. He also showed that he does not work or conduct business in California and does not own real or personal property in California. Plaintiffs have not shown that Abdullah engages in commercial activities that impact California on a substantial, continuous, and systematic basis for general jurisdiction.
The admissible evidence presented by Plaintiffs is also insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over Abdullah. There is no admissible evidence to show that Abdullah participated in the alleged business deal, traveled to California for it, or received proceeds from it. He denies being involved in the alleged business deal and there is no evidence to show otherwise.
In sum, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that minimum contacts exist between Abdullah and California to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, Abdullah’s motion to quash service of summons is granted. The service of summons and Complaint on specially appearing Defendant Riad Abdullah is hereby ordered quashed.
Specially appearing Defendants shall give notice of the rulings.