Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 21STCV01294, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01294    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 24

ORT Furniture Manufacturing Co. (Defendant)

RESP.  PARTY: Ezra Callner (Plaintiff); Jazz Callner (Plaintiff)  

SERVICE:    

¿ OPPOSITION                                                       *NON-Opposition filed.                    

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction;

TENTATIVE RULING:

The above-captioned matters are called for hearing.

The Court has read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its tentative rulings in open Court.

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction; reservation no.: 619997494030 filed by Defendant ORT Furniture Manufacturing Co. on 01/05/2023 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Ezra Callner’s service of process upon specially appearing Defendant ORT Manufacturing Co., is quashed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendant ORT Furniture Manufacturing Co. (“Defendant”) moves for an order quashing service of summons and complaint filed by Plaintiff Ezra Callner, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Jazz Callner (“Plaintiff”).

A defendant may move to quash service on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction by filing a noticed motion to quash the service of summons at any time before the expiration of its time to plead. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10 (a)(1).) When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring him or her within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is, the facts requisite to an effective service. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449 (Vons Companies) [upon a defendant’s motion to quash, “the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.”].) Once Plaintiff establish facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. As Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support his initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction, the motion is GRANTED. (See Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449)

Moving party is directed to give notice.