Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 22-1239525, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash Service

The motion of specially-appearing defendant Urban Organic, Inc., a New York corporation, to quash service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED.

This defendant filed a declaration indicating that it does not do business in California, that it has no offices in the state, and this was a one-time transaction initiated by the plaintiff for reasons unknown.  It further states that it is a small company that does not market itself and has almost no web site presence; its customers come from “personal relationships and repeat business.”

Where a motion to quash summons and complaint is filed, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.

The declaration submitted by Huasong Yin in opposition to the motion is particularly weak.  It does not address with particularity the specific jurisdictional assertions made by the defendant; that is, that the plaintiff contacted the defendant on February 27, 2021.  It merely says that the defendant contacted it, but it never discloses how or why.  The two declarations simply contradict one another.

Further, there is no showing the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in California.  Using a warehouse address to ship the goods does not rise to purposefully availing the privilege to do business in California.  Nor does it demonstrate that the defendant has a continuing presence in this State.

The court notes that the documents submitted by the parties show addresses (at least two of which are warehouses) in Rosemead, San Gabriel, and Fontana.  The court finds it rather unlikely the defendant uses a warehouse address at a minimum of two of these locations without having other demonstrable presence in the State.  These various addresses are more consistent with the defendant’s claim that it used someone else’s warehouses to make the delivery.  If the defendant actually owned or leased these spaces, certainly the plaintiff would have some evidence of that.  Either way, the two positions simply contradict one another.

Based on the above, the court finds that the plaintiff did not meet its burden.

Case Management Conference

On the court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to March 16, 2023, at 8:30 am, on the ground the matter is not yet at issue.

Notice

The plaintiff shall give notice.