Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV03797, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 9, 2024

Case Name: Connor v. Ashfield Healthcare, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV01245

Matter: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant Dana Roessler

Responding Party: Plaintiff Sable Connor

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Quash is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  Dana Roessler is named as a Defendant for the sixth cause of action for defamation.  It is alleged that Roessler “informed individuals other than Plaintiff [Sable Connor] that Plaintiff had violated company policies and procedures, and specifically, that she had abandoned her job.”

Defendant Dana Roessler now seeks to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Roessler contends that “she is not domiciled in California; does not consent to jurisdiction by this Court in California; and does not have minimum contacts with California to give rise to general personal jurisdiction in California. Likewise, specific personal jurisdiction cannot be exercised over the Ms. Roessler because she does not purposefully avail herself of any forum benefits in California; and there is no controversy that has arisen between Plaintiff and Ms. Roessler and, even if there was, it does not relate to any contacts by Ms. Roessler in California.”

Plaintiff does not seem to assert that there is general jurisdiction.  Instead, Plaintiff argues that there is specific jurisdiction because of Roesslers’s communications directed at Plaintiff, who resides and works only in California. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that “Defendant Roessler was Defendant Ashfield’s Leave and Administration Manager across the nation. Specifically, Roessler was actively involved in Plaintiff’s medical leave of absence process. Roessler regularly communicated with Plaintiff regarding her leave of absence. Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff communicated exclusively with Roessler regarding her request for reasonable accommodation. Roessler [ ] was involved in key decisions, including approving Plaintiff’s leave of absence, acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff’s medical documentations, and ultimately terminating Plaintiff’s employment. Roessler’s direct and continuous involvement demonstrates actions that she purposefully engaged in business activities within the forum state, thereby establishing a substantial connection within the state.”

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).)  “Although the defendant is the moving party, the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.”  (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) 

By statute, the courts of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.)  Constitutional due process requires that a nonresident defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with a forum such that the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.  (International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)  The extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum determines whether the Court’s jurisdiction is general or specific.  (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 754-755.)  

Courts may assert general jurisdiction where the foreign defendant’s contacts with the forum “ ‘are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.’ ”  (Id. at p. 754.)  

To determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction is proper in a given case, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.  (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)  “A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 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) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.”  (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.)  It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct giving rise to the pleaded causes of action amounts to constitutionally cognizable “minimum contacts.”  (Id. at p. 1313.)

It is not clear where the alleged defamatory statements were made; however, even if the statements were made in Pennsylvania or some other state, there is specific jurisdiction based on the facts that these statements pertained to an employee’s actions within California and resulted in a termination taking place in California, which Roessler directly communicated to Plaintiff.  (See Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788–89 [“The allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. It impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California. . . . [T]he brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent's emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the ‘effects’ of their Florida conduct in California.”].)  

Further, there is no substantial basis here to reject jurisdiction due to notions of fair play.  (See Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 3-B [“as a practical matter, jurisdiction is rarely declined on ‘reasonableness’ grounds where a defendant has engaged in commercial activities impacting the forum state.”].)

Thus, the Motion to Quash is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.