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.