Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCV02856 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant Summa Holdings, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

This action arises out of an employment relationship. On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA (3) disability or perceived disability discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint identifying Moving Defendant as Doe Defendant 1. On February 9, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to quash service (the “Motion”) on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Moving Defendant in this matter.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) section 410.10, California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. (CCP § 410.10.) A state may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.) When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that sufficient “minimum contacts” exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Taylor-Rush v. Multitech Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 103, 112.) The plaintiff must prove the factual basis justifying exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428.) The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate and cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222.) If the plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 273.)

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition (the “Opposition”) does not argue that Moving Defendants are subject to general jurisdiction in California. The Court finds that Plaintiff has conceded this argument under Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 983, 1021. The Court also finds that while the Opposition argues that the Motion is premature because Moving Defendant had not been served with the Complaint when it filed the Motion, Moving Defendant has presented evidence that it served its acknowledgement of its receipt of the Complaint and Summons on January 9, 2023. (See Supplemental Declaration of Sehreen Ladak (“Supp. Ladak Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A-B.) The Court is therefore unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the Motion is not ripe.

When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 269.) Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper 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) asserting personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Id.)

The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant’s intentionality. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 269.) This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on his contacts with the forum. (Id.) The purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of a third person. (Id.) When a defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs onto consumers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the state. (Id.)

Purposeful availment requires that the defendant have performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state. (Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 907.) A contract with an out-of-state party does not automatically establish purposeful availment in the other party’s home forum. (Id.) Rather, a court must evaluate the contract terms and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum. (Id.) Relevant factors include prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the parties’ course of dealings, and the contract’s choice of law provision. (Id.) Minimum contacts by a nonresident's agents or employees may be imputed to the nonresident principal. (See, e.g., Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 984; Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 536-37.)

Plaintiff argues that Moving Defendant is subject to the Court’s jurisdiction because it acted as Plaintiff’s joint employer and as the alter ego of the other Defendants. To support this contention, Plaintiff cites to the unverified Complaint and does not provide admissible evidence. (See Declaration of Viridiana E. Aceves (“Aceves Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit 5.)

Plaintiff also argues that Moving Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction because it is the named policy holder for Defendant Arrowhead Products Corporation’s insurance policy. (See Aceves Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 4.) This evidence of Moving Defendant’s holding an insurance policy for a subsidiary, without more, however, is insufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state to allow the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Moving Defendant. (See Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 579.) In addition, the case cited by Plaintiff to support the argument that Moving Defendant’s insurance policy establishes sufficient contacts with the forum state, which involves a fact pattern concerning the personal jurisdiction over an insurer in an insurance dispute, is not controlling and is inapposite, as Moving Defendant is the policy holder rather than the insurer.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to present evidence that allows the Court to determine that it may properly exercise jurisdiction over Moving Defendant.

The Opposition alternatively requests a continuance to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding Moving Defendant’s alter ego liability. A trial court has the discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues. (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 964.) In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction. (Id.) Plaintiff has not identified facts that show that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence that establishes jurisdiction over Moving Defendant. The Court accordingly declines to continue the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court