Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV27001, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27001    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Jeffrey Dungo’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

I.                MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of the absence of jurisdiction over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10 subd. (a)(1).) A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction “has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167.) If satisfied, the burden then shifts to defendant to show that exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Id.)

A court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of California or of the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible only “if the defendant has sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” [Citations.]’ ” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (“HealthMarkets, Inc.”) (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1166 [citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316].) A defendant’s conduct with the forum state must be such that the defendant has “fair warning” that its activities might subject it to personal jurisdiction. (HealthMarkets, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166–1167; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472.)

“Minimum contacts exist where the defendant's conduct in the forum state is such that he should reasonably anticipate being subject to suit there, and it is reasonable and fair to force him to do so. [Citations.] In contrast, contacts that are random, fortuitous, or attenuated do not rise to the minimum level, and general jurisdiction cannot be exercised under these circumstances.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Superior Court (“F. Hoffman-La Roche”) (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 795.)

A defendant that has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the forum state is subject to general jurisdiction in the state, meaning jurisdiction on any cause of action. Absent such extensive contacts, a defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction in an action arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Specific jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the defendant's forum contacts in relation to the particular cause of action alleged.

(HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167.)

“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062, internal quotation marks and alterations omitted.)

Defendant Jeffrey Dungo (Defendant) moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, as he is a resident of Nevada with no contacts with California, and the relevant incident is alleged to have occurred in Nevada. (Motion at pp. 5–7.) Defendant is indeed alleged to be a resident of Nevada. (Complaint ¶ 14.)

The plaintiff bears the burden of showing the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify jurisdiction. (Brue v. Shabaab (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 578, 590.) And Defendant is correct that employees’ “contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer's activities there.” (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790.) “Each defendant's contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.” (Ibid.) Here, Defendant is alleged to be a resident of Nevada. The incident is alleged to have taken place there. And Plaintiffs have filed no opposition providing any basis for exercising general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant in California.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED.