Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00646, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00646    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 8-20-24

Case #24CHCV00646, Julian Lawrence Colberg vs. Dallas B. Tanner

Trial Date: N/A

 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dallas B. Tanner

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Julian Lawrence Colberg

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Cross-Defendant has requested that the Court quash the service of summons.

 

RULING: Motion is granted.

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendant Dallas B. Tanner (Defendant) filed this motion to quash service of summons on July 25, 2024, pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10(a)(1), on the basis that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant argues that this Court has no general jurisdiction over him because he is an individual domiciled in Texas and does not have sufficient minimum contacts with California. He also argues that this Court does not have specific jurisdiction over him because he has not purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California.

 

Defendant is the CEO of Invitation Homes, Inc. It appears that Plaintiff Julian Lawrence Colberg’s (Plaintiff) claims are related to action taken by Invitation Homes. However, Plaintiff has sued Defendant personally as an individual rather than suing Invitation Homes.

 

Plaintiff appears to argue in his opposition that Defendant has contacts with California because Invitation Homes has contacts with California. He also seems to argue that Defendant is the principal agent of Invitation Homes. The end of Plaintiff’s opposition is confusing because it states “In light of the Motion(proposed order) to quash summons, the plaintiff consents and pleads the court to remove this case, alternatively to dismissing the summons. The plaintiff requests – as an alternative to quashing the summons for jurisdictional defects, that this case be removed.” Plaintiff appears to be consenting to the dismissal of this case, though it is unclear. The Court will address the substance of Defendant’s motion.

 

ANALYSIS

CCP § 418.10(a)(1) allows a defendant to serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court.

 

Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Viaview, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 216.) To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must present competent evidence showing that the defendant’s conduct related to the pleaded causes of action is such as to constitute minimum contacts with the forum to justify jurisdiction. (Id. at 217.)

 

General Jurisdiction

A nonresident defendant is subject to the forum’s general jurisdiction where the defendant’s contacts are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090.) “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile[.]” (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924.) An individual’s domicile is established by a showing of “physical presence” and “an intention to remain there indefinitely.” (In re Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1258–1259.) “By contrast, those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter.” (J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011) 564 U.S. 873, 881.)

 

In this case, Defendant is an individual domiciled in Texas. He works in the Invitation Homes corporate headquarters in Texas. Defendant has a Texas driver’s license, owns property in Texas, and is registered to vote in Texas. He has no connections to California. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant, in his capacity as individual, primarily lives or operates outside of Texas. Defendant has no physical presence in California.

 

Accordingly, this Court does not have general jurisdiction over Defendant.

 

Specific Jurisdiction

If a nonresident’s contacts are not substantial and systematic, a court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if (i) the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits by purposefully and voluntarily directing his activities toward the forum, (ii) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum, and (iii) the forum’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Jensen v. Jensen (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 682, 686-687.)

 

First, there are no facts or evidence that Defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits by purposefully and voluntarily directing his activities toward the forum. He is an individual who lives and works in Texas. There is no evidence that he has purposefully availed himself of California’s benefits. Regardless of what Invitation Homes has done, Defendant has not availed himself of any forum benefits in his personal capacity.

 

Second, Defendant has no contact with the forum jurisdiction in his personal capacity, so the controversy cannot be related to or arise out of his contacts with the forum jurisdiction.

 

Third and finally, Defendant argues that the exercise of specific jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. When considering whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice,” the Court must consider (1) the burden on Defendant, (2) the interests of the forum state, (3) Plaintiff’s interests in obtaining relief, (4) the interstate and international judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) shared interest of the various jurisdictions in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.)

 

In this case, it would be burdensome on Defendant, a Texas resident, to defend this case in California. Next, California is not the only jurisdiction that would have interest in this case, as it appears that Plaintiff is alleging wrongdoing related to properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, as well. Based on the foregoing, forcing Defendant to defend this case in California would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

 

This Court does not have specific jurisdiction over Defendant.

 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is granted. Defendant is dismissed from this action.

 

Moving party to give notice.