Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV20078, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20078    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 17, 2025                                           TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                                Arturo Viscarra v. Liliana Frankel, et al.

CASE NO.:                      24STCV20078

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:              Defendant Liliana Frankel, Specially Appearing

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On August 8, 2024, plaintiff Arturo Viscarra commenced this action against defendants Liliana Frankel (Frankel) and Andrew Bahena (Bahena) alleging causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

            On November 6, 2024, defendant Frankel, specially appearing, filed this Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

A defendant must file a motion to quash service of summons on or before the last day on which the defendant must plead unless the time is extended by stipulation or by a judge’s order for good case.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)  Although the notice of motion must designate a hearing date not more than 30 days after the notice is filed, scheduling a hearing date beyond the 30-day time period does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.  (Olinick v. BMB Entertainment (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1295-96.) 

When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553.)¿ Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.¿ (Ibid.)¿  

            A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) 

III.       DISCUSSION

            Defendant Frankel has not been served with the summons and complaint.  Nonetheless, she seeks an order quashing service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction on the following grounds:

1.      Frankel is a non-resident defendant who lives in Mexico.

2.      Frankel has never resided in California.

3.      Frankel has never been employed by a company with headquarters in California.

In support, Frankel offers her declaration wherein she attests to each foregoing fact.  (Frankel Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) 

Based on the foregoing, the court finds the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Frankel would be unreasonable.  First, Plaintiff, having not filed an opposition, does not meet his initial burden to justify the exercise of jurisdiction.  Second, Frankel establishes that she lacks sufficient minimum contacts with California. 

IV.       CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED for lack of personal jurisdiction.    

Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   January 17, 2025