Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 10, 2023

22STCV11086

Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Defendant Travis Roundtree.

The motion is granted.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from an accident involving a U-Haul trailer which took place in December 2020. Plaintiff Ronal Becerra, Jr. filed his Complaint against Defendants Travis Roundtree and Gordon Greer on April 1, 2022.

On November 16, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Greer’s motion to quash service of summons on the grounds that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Greer.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant Roundtree filed the instant motion to quash service of summons.

Moving Arguments

Roundtree specially appears and moves to quash service of summons under Code Civ. Proc., section 418.10 on the grounds that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Colorado and the events giving rise to this action took place in Colorado.

Opposing Arguments

None.

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:  (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) 

California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. (Code Civ. Proc., section 410.10.) Accordingly, a California court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has not been served with process within the State comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution 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. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 444-45; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)

California recognizes two ways in which the constitutional “minimum contacts” requirement may be satisfied. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so systematic and so continuous as to make it consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum, even if the cause of action is unrelated to the contacts. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at 445 – 446; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310; Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.) 

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.)

A nonresident may be subject to specific jurisdiction if: (1) the nonresident has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; (2) the controversy arises out of the nonresident’s contacts with the state; and (3) it would be fair and just to assert jurisdiction. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.)

A court may consider factors including:

1. The extent to which the lawsuit relates to defendant’s activities or contacts with California

2. The availability of evidence and the location of witnesses

3. The availability of an alternative forum in which the claim could be litigated 

4. The relative costs and burdens to the litigants of bringing or defending the action

5. State policy in providing a forum for this particular litigation

Where personal jurisdiction is challenged, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. (Thomas J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d at p. 148.) The burden is established by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.” (Ziller Electronics Lab Gmbh v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 1222, 1232-1233; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.)

Roundtree seeks to quash service of summons of Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over him. It is Plaintiff’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Roundtree had minimum contacts with California.

The Court does not have general jurisdiction over Roundtree. The proof of personal service filed April 12, 2022 shows that Roundtree was served in Colorado at his residence at 449 Dilley Lane, Westcliffe, CO 81252. Roundtree is not domiciled in California because he resides in Colorado and was domiciled in Colorado on the day of the subject accident. (Roundtree Decl., ¶¶2-5.) The accident at issue here occurred in December 2020 in Colorado. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Roundtree because Roundtree was served in and resides in Colorado and the events giving rise to this action took place in Colorado. There are no facts to suggest Roundtree had minimum contacts with California. Roundtree’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.