Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21STCV29739, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29739    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant Nelson E. Hernandez aka Nelson E. Hernandez Altamirano (“Nelson”) moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that the court lack personal jurisdiction.

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiffs Zoltan Vnoucsek ("Zoltan") and Nora Vnoucsek ("Nora", and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against The Estate of Bertilla Monroy Ramos a.k.a. Bertilla R. Monroy a.k.a. Bertilla ("Bertilla"), Nelson, Ruth Hernandez ("Ruth"); Brionna Monroy ("Brionna"); Tatiana Maria Abiley ("Abiley"), and Yaneth H. Jimenez ("Jimenez") (collectively, "Defendants").  

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on October 11, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 03, 2022, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, (2) Quiet Title, (3) Equitable Conversion, (4) Declaratory Relief, and (5) Partition of Real Property.  

Plaintiffs allege that Bertilla, who passed away intestate on August 17, 2020, was the mother of Nora and held title to the real property located at 11617 Keswick Street, North Hollywood, California 91606 ("Keswick Property"). Plaintiffs allege that Nelson and Tania Hernandez ("Tania") were a married couple, and that Ruth, Abiley, and Brionna are their children. Plaintiffs allege that Nelson and Tania befriended Bertilla in 2009 and that Defendants subsequently conspired to commit fraud, undue influence, and emotional blackmail in order to, among other acts, trick Bertilla into marrying Nelson, take Bertilla's assets, and make an improper claim on the Keswick Property. 

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the Motion to Quash Service of Summons on October 19, 2022. The Court received Plaintiffs’ untimely opposition on December 1, 2022. The Court has not received a reply as of December 6, 2022. 

ANALYSIS:

Standard of Review – Quash Service of Summons 

Without valid service of a summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over a defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1).) Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10 authorizes a motion to quash service of summons within the time period for filing a responsive pleading. If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. (Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(e)(1).) 

California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. (Code of Civ. Proc. §410.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 444-45; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)  “When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. 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 449.)

The concept of minimum contacts embraces two types of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants: general and specific. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 536; Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446.)  A non-resident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic, so that the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310; Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 447 – 448; Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.)

If the non-resident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, they may nevertheless be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed themself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or “arises out of” a defendant’s contacts with the forum.  (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 446; Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 109.)  A controversy relates to or arises out of such contacts if there is a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 452.)

For specific jurisdiction under the “effects test,” intentional conduct occurring elsewhere may give rise to jurisdiction in California where it is calculated to cause injury in California. The defendant must expressly aim or target his conduct toward California, with the knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum. (Dongxiao Yue v. Wenbin Yang (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 539, 547 (Citations omitted).) For example, while mere posting of defamatory comments on the internet even with the knowledge the plaintiff is in the forum state is not enough to establish specific jurisdiction, “specific jurisdiction may be established under the effects test where a defendant sends ‘California-focused’ social media messages ‘directly’ to California residents ‘with knowledge the recipients [are] California residents’ for the alleged purpose of causing reputational injury there.” (Ibid.)

Merits

Nelson argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him; however, Nelson failed to provide any evidence via a declaration or otherwise to support this position.  Nelson asserts that he is not required to provide any evidence and may stand mute. (Motion, pg. 3.) Nelson argues that proof of service served to Nelson in Nevada, not in California. (Id.) Nelson argues that: (1) he is domiciled and resides in Nevada (Id.); (2) the causes of action regarding promissory estoppel, equitable conversion, and unjust enrichment do not reference any allegations against Nelson and should be considered a dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Estate of Bertilla Monroy (Id. at pgs. 4-5.); (3) that the quiet title action and partition regarding the 11617 Keswick Street, North Hollywood, California property is subject to probate and owned by the Estate of Bertilla Monroy (Id.); (4) that he is merely a beneficiary of the estate who does not own the assets of the estate until the court orders them distributed (Id.), (5) that the declaratory relief action pertains to an agreement not defined in the complaint nor raised as a breach of contract cause of action in the complaint (Id. at pg. 5.); (6) that the complaint alleges a promise by Bertilla Monroy to Plaintiff, which does not relate to Nelson, nor should it avail him to conducting business in California. (Id.)

Nelson also argues that despite his petition for probate of the Estate of Bertilla Monroy, the fact the he is a beneficiary of the Estate of Bertilla Monroy does not give the court jurisdiction.  (Id. at pg. 6.) Nelson states that the only property he owns is his beneficiary interest in the Estate of Bertilla Monro and his inheritance does not give rise to the causes of action in the complaint. (Id. at pg. 7)

Plaintiffs however do not oppose Nelson’s motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. (Decl. Szabo, ¶5.) Plaintiffs argue that in their efforts to obtain a quiet title judgement, Plaintiffs named Nelson in their action because he had an adverse claim on the title as Bertilla Monroy’s lawfully wedded surviving spouse. (Opposition, pg. 2.) Plaintiffs assert that Nelson has argued that he has no claim to the property given his lack of a sufficient connection to the property subject to the court’s exclusive jurisdiction. (Id. at pg. 4.) Plaintiffs argue that they would not oppose the court granting Nelson’s motion as Plaintiffs’ counsel believes Res Judicata and collateral estoppel would attach, preventing Nelson from coming back later to claim ownership over the same property. (Id.; Decl. Szabo, ¶¶5-6.)

Plaintiff does not provide evidence to show the existence of jurisdiction. However, because Plaintiffs do not oppose Nelson’s motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, Nelson’s motion to quash is granted. The Court does not rule on statements regarding res judicata and collateral estoppel as those issues are not present in front of the Court this time.

Based on the foregoing, Nelson’s motion to quash is granted.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Nelson E. Hernandez aka Nelson E. Hernandez Altamirano’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on December 9, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS GRANTED

DATE:  December 9, 2022                           _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles