Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV04113, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04113, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04113 Hearing Date: December 20, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Mine Caglar Cost v. American Income Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 23SMCV04113

Hearing Date December 20, 2023

Specially Appearing Defendant Globe Life Insurance Agency’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Plaintiff Cost in this PAGA action alleges Labor Code violations. Plaintiff worked for defendant American Income Life Insurance Company (AIL) and its alleged parent company Globe Life Insurance Agency (GLIA). GLIA moves to quash for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it is not AIL’s parent company and lacks minimum contacts with California.

“A nonresident defendant is subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic.” Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362. This is established if defendant maintains a physical business presence and employees and regularly solicits and conducts business in the forum. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v. Superior Court (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 495, 500.

Absent general jurisdiction, the forum state has specific jurisdiction if (1) defendant purposefully availed itself of doing business in the state, (2) the controversy arises from or is related to defendant’s forum-related contact, and (3) assertion of jurisdiction would be reasonable. Buchanan, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at 1362.

A foreign corporation’s designation of an agent for service of process and qualification to do business in California are not enough to establish jurisdiction. Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 268. Ownership of a subsidiary within the forum state does not constitute “purposeful availment” unless the parent company purposefully directs the subsidiary’s activities. Healthmarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160.

GLIA is a Texas corporation, with no offices or employees in California. Zorn decl. ¶2. AIL is not its subsidiary, though both are subsidiaries of third-party Globe Life, Inc. Zorn decl. ¶3. GLIA and Globe Life are separate companies, and GLIA has never done business in California. GLIA argues no general or specific jurisdiction.

In opposition, Cost admits GLIA is a Texas corporation but argues sufficient contacts to establish general and specific jurisdiction in California. Cost provides screenshots of an “agent search” from GLIA’s website, showing addresses of agents in San Dimas, West Covina, Ontario, Corona, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Bakersfield, Santa Ana and Simi Valley. Zadykyan decl., Exhibit A. Cost argues the presence of multiple agents in California is enough to establish general jurisdiction. However, plaintiff fails to adequately authenticate the documents or provide context. Screenshots do not establish these agents are GLIA’s employees currently conducting business in California or that the information is accurate. These screenshots do not establish general jurisdiction. GLIA’s reply states the webpage belongs to Globe Life, not GLIA. Cost provides no evidence to refute this claim.

Cost provides a designation filed with the Secretary of State allowing GLIA to conduct business in California. Cost, Exhibit B. Under Anderson, qualification to do business in a state is not enough for that state to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company. Finally, Cost presents the employment agreement with AIL, which names “Globe Life, Inc.” as a party and as AIL’s parent company. Exhibit C, pg. 5. Cost argues this establishes personal jurisdiction.

In fact, the employment agreement does not refer to “Globe Life Insurance Agency, Inc.” Rather, it refers to “Globe Life, Inc.” This gives credence to GLIA’s argument that Globe Life, Inc. is a separate entity. The employment agreement proves “Globe Life, Inc.” did business in California, but it does not mention GLIA or prove any in-state contacts.

GLIA presented a declaration that Globe Life, Inc. is the parent company of both GLIA and defendant AIL. GLIA argues Cost incorrectly conflates GLIA and Globe Life., Inc. Zorn decl. ¶¶2-3. Cost’s employment agreement names Globe Life, Inc., not GLIA. Plaintiff has not established GLIA has sufficient contacts with California. Service is quashed. GRANTED.