Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 21-1231953, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

The motion of specially-appearing defendant Michael Brown to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Brown is a resident of Florida and claims he has no contacts with California.  The burden thus shifts to the plaintiff to show Brown has minimum contacts with California sufficient to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction on a non-resident. 

There is no basis on which to assert general jurisdiction over Brown.  (See Decl. of Brown, paras. 3-13.)

The plaintiff fails to demonstrate a basis on which to assert specific jurisdiction.  Brown denies he was a party to any agreement that is the subject of this action, and he does not have any relationship with the other defendant.  (See Decl. Brown, paras. 14 and 16.)

The plaintiff alleges that Brown purposefully availed himself of the benefits of this forum because he “created a continuing contractual obligation between himself and UFSF, a California Limited Liability Company,” and, among other things, he “directed activities such as payment on the contract with UFSF wiring payment for USFS work orders directly to [a] USFS bank account which was in the forum state.”

But the evidence presented does not contain specific facts as to Brown’s contacts with California.  The declaration of Dabek simply states that he negotiated with “defendants,” that “defendants would procure maintenance contracts that USFS would perform the work on,” the agreement was consummated in a Santa Ana “conference call,” that USFS would perform the work, that USFS would send out the invoice, that the outside companies would pay “defendants” directly, and that “defendants” would retain a portion of the outside company’s fee for “defendants’ procurement services” and then “defendants paid USFS directly on USFS’s invoices.”  Dabek continues that “defendants” received invoices from the plaintiff that were generated in Santa Ana and were delivered electronically to “defendants,” and that “defendants” wired the payment to plaintiff’s bank account in California.

The only contact seems to be the alleged entry into a contract with a resident of California.  However, “a nonresident defendant does not necessarily become subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum state simply by entering into a contract with a resident of the forum.”  (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th r434, 449.)

Finally, the plaintiff suggests Brown has waived any claim of lack of jurisdiction.  The argument is there was a waiver because counsel agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint on behalf of Brown.  No case is cited that would support such an argument, and the court is aware of none.

Brown shall give notice.