Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCV22225, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22225    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Courtney N. Phillips, Trustee of the Clark living Trust dated January 19, 2023’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Plaintiffs to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of a lack 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.)

In determining whether specific jurisdiction exists over a given defendant, “the appropriate inquiry is whether the plaintiff's cause of action “arises out of or has a substantial connection with a business relationship defendant has purposefully established with California.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 448.) “[A]s the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant's activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” (Ibid.)

It is the plaintiff’s initial burden to establish the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (ViaView v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 209–10.) “Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Vons Companies, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)

Defendant Courtney J. Phillips, Trustee of the Clark Family Trust dated January 19, 2023 (Defendant) moves to quash the service of summons upon her for lack of minimum contacts with this jurisdiction. Defendant argues that she is a resident of Louisiana, and the trust of which she is trustee is sited in Nevada, where Decedent was resident and where his estate was adjudicated. (Phillips Decl. ¶¶ 1–2.) Defendant denies transacting any business in California save the filing of a petition to deem certain real property, referred to in the Complaint, an asset of the trust, granted on October 16, 2023. (Phillips Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Though Plaintiff Sylvia Cuellar (Plaintiffs) alleges an oral and implied agreement to transfer the property to her, Defendant notes that Plaintiff seeks only damages in the Complaint, and does not seek an interest in the property that Defendant claims. (Motion at pp. 5–9.)

Since the motion was filed, however, Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging entitlement to the property, and seeking specific performance of the alleged contract by which she would claim ownership. (FAC at p. 12.) “[W]hen claims to the property itself are the source of the underlying controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, it would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction. In such cases, the defendant's claim to property located in the State would normally²⁵ indicate that he expected to benefit from the State's protection of his interest.” (Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) 433 U.S. 186, 207–208.) A party who claims an ownership interest in California property “purposefully avail[s] himself of the benefits and protections of the laws of California.” (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1363.) As Plaintiff’s amended claims arise out of her and Defendant’s mutually exclusive claims to ownership of the same property, the claims arise out of Defendant’s purposeful contacts. Plaintiff has therefore established minimum contacts in keeping with due process.

The motion is therefore DENIED.