Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

August 17, 2022

22STCV11086

Motion to Quash Service of Summons by Specially Appearing Defendant Gordon Greer

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff contends that this court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Greer passed upon all-purpose or general jurisdiction.

Plaintiff argues that because Defendant Greer lived in California prior to the accident at issue, his ties to California are substantial, continuous and systematic.

Plaintiff concedes that Defendant Greer moved from Burbank to Colorado on December 1, 2020, and arrived in Colorado late on December 1. The accident at issue here occurred on December 2, 2020 in Colorado outside Defendant’s new residence. Defendant Greer presents uncontroverted evidence that he has continued to reside at the same address in Colorado since that time and that it was and is his intention to remain there.

The relevant period for determining the existence of minimum contacts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction is that which existed when the cause of action arose. (Boaz v. Byle & Co. (1995) 40 CA4th 700, 717.) “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.117, 137.) A domicile is the place where one resides with the intent to remain indefinitely. (DeYoung v. DeYoung (1946) 27 C3d 521, 524.) Due to the intent requirement, a person may only have one domicile at a time. (Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 CA2d 1249, 1258.)    

Based on the facts provided here, Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Greer.

Plaintiff requests the opportunity to conduct further discovery on the issue of jurisdiction. 

The Court wishes to discuss this matter with the parties. 

The parties are therefore ordered to appear (remotely or in person) at the hearing.