Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action involves a dispute over a car.  Plaintiff Regal Motors, LLC is a Montana limited liability company.  (Compl. ¶ 2.)  Defendant Jerry Witsie resides in Las Vegas, Nevada.  (Id. ¶ 3.)   

Plaintiff owns a 2013 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophe, Vehicle Identification Number SCA682D57DUX751801 (the “Car”).  (Id. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff claims it gave Defendant “conditional permission” to possess the Car.  (Id.)  And when Plaintiff demanded the return of the Car, Defendant refused.  (Id. ¶6.)  Defendant maintains the Car was a gift.      

This action ensued.  The operative complaint alleges two claims for (1) claim and delivery, and (2) conversion.     

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendant argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction because Defendant does not work, live or own any property in California, and the Car on which the claims are based is registered in Montana and is located in Nevada.  In the alternative, Defendant argues the Court should stay the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens because a balance of private and public factors weigh in favor of litigating the case in Nevada.   

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The Court sustains Defendant’s Objection Nos. 1-6 to the Declaration of Leslie Valentino. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The extent to which a California court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the nature and quality of defendant’s “contacts” with the state.¿ U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognize two types of jurisdiction: (1) “general” and (2) “specific.” (See¿Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup.Ct. of Calif., San Francisco County¿(2017) 582 U.S. 255, 262¿(Bristol-Myers);¿Ford Motor Co. v.¿Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.¿(2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024.)¿ 

General jurisdiction requires¿“substantial . . . continuous and¿systematic” contacts¿with California, i.e., the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of a physical presence¿in the state.  (Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 16 Cal.4th 434, 452.)  Specific jurisdiction exists where contacts are insufficient for¿general jurisdiction, but the contact is related to the cause of action presented. (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc.¿(2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 314, 327.) 

Although the defendant¿is the moving party on a motion to quash service of process, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in opposing the motion: “[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Sup.Ct. (Murkey)¿(1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710;¿Floveyor Int'l, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Shick Tube-Veyor Corp.)¿(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793;¿Elkman v. National States Ins. Co.¿(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313.)  The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Sup.Ct. (Grosh Scenic Studios)¿(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.)  If plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Buchanan v. Soto¿(2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362;¿Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc.¿(2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291.)¿ 

Jurisdictional facts must be proved by admissible evidence. This generally requires documentary evidence and declarations by competent witnesses. (Rivelli v. Hemm¿(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 402;¿In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II¿(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendant.  He has no contacts with the State that can be characterized as systematic or continuous sufficient to conclude he is “at home” in California.  Defendant is an 88 year old who lives full time in Las Vegas, Nevada.  (Wiltsie Decl. ¶¶  2-3.)  He has never worked or lived in California and has never owned any property in California.  (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.)   

The Court also lacks specific jurisdiction.  For specific jurisdiction, “courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum and the litigation.”  (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.)  A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: “(1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself 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.”  (Id.)   

Here, there is no evidence Defendant purposefully availed himself of forum benefits.  The Car that is the subject of the parties’ dispute, is registered in Montana (Compl. ¶ 5), and is currently located in Nevada.  (Wilsie Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  Defendant took delivery of the Car in Las Vegas, Nevada.  (Id.) 

Plaintiff submits the declaration of Leslie Valentino in support of its opposition.  While Ms. Valentino’s declaration states she has personal knowledge, there are no facts stated that demonstrate she has personal knowledge.  (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 742, 754 (“Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such a bare statement [that the affiant has personal knowledge] has no redeeming value and should be ignored.”).)  Ms. Valentino does not say who she is in relation to Plaintiff (other than describing herself as a “representative”), or how or why she has personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration.  As a result, her declaration does not provide any admissible evidence and must be disregarded.    

However, even if the Court were to consider the declaration, it still would not support Plaintiff’s position.  Plaintiff argues that the “entire transaction” took place in California, where members of Plaintiff reside, and the Car was shipped from California to Nevada.  Plaintiff’s declaration, however, does not mention how the transaction transpired or that it even took place in California.  Nor does the declaration show Defendant had any dealings with Plaintiff’s California members.  

Plaintiff also argues that it suffers harm in California because the Car was being used by its members in California.  Under the “effects test,” which is applied to the purposeful availment prong, a plaintiff must show that: (1) that defendant committed an intentional act; (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; and (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.  (Jewish Defense Org., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1057).  Plaintiff’s declaration fails to show that Defendant knew any harm was likely to be suffered in California particularly since Plaintiff is a Montana limited liability company.   

Because the first and second requirement for specific jurisdiction are not met, the Court will not go on to consider the third requirement.  Simply put, there is no basis to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant, and the Court declines to consider the alternative motion to stay for forum non-conveniens.      

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 18, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Cour