Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00108 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00108, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00108 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: C

RIVERA v. RIVERA

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00108

HEARING: 02/23/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant KARLA GABRIELA TIRADO RIVERA’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice

This contractual fraud action was filed by Plaintiff MARCO CESAR RIVERA (“Plaintiff”) on February 15, 2022. On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant KARLA GABRIELA TIRADO RIVERA (“Tirado”) is an individual doing business in the City of Bell, in the State of California. (FAC ¶2.) Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about 2010, Defendant Tirado approached Plaintiff and told him that she was the owner of the rights to two transportation routes in Mexico in which she operated mini-buses that transported individuals who paid fares. Defendant Tirado explained that she was the exclusive owner of the two routes and that she wanted to sell them.” (FAC ¶7.) “Plaintiff made payments in the form of several wire transfers to Defendant Tirado’s business associates in Mexico in accordance with her wire instructions. The payments were wired at different times in 2012.” (FAC ¶9.) “In 2016, after repeated demands to perform by Plaintiff, Defendant Tirado admitted that she did not own the rights to the routes ... After being confronted, Defendant Tirado cut off all communication and disappeared in Mexico.” (FAC ¶13.) “[O]n or about January 2, 2022, Plaintiff discovered through social media that Defendant Tirado was now in the United States and had recently married an American citizen.” (FAC ¶14.)

Specially appearing Defendant Tirado now argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her because she is a Mexican citizen. Tirado declares, under penalty of perjury: “I was born in Navolato, Sinaloa, Mexico…. I am a citizen of Mexico. I was first granted a B1/B2 Visa/Border Crossing Card on December 20, 2018. (Exhibit A). I have never physically been in any part of the United States, including California, in my life, until February 01, 2019. (See Exhibit B). The second time I came to the United States was on or about March 15, 2020 (see Exhibit C). I have had no other type of minimum contact within the State of California, or any other U.S. state. I have never had a business or conducted any business in the State of California, or any other U.S. state.” (Tirado Decl., ¶3.) Tirado seemingly argues that she has no physical presence in California, has never conducted business in California, and has not purposefully availed herself of conducting business in this state.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Tirado purposefully availed herself of forum benefits in California by reaching out to Plaintiff to establish a business relationship, and then transacting business with Plaintiff.

When a nonresident defendant/cross-defendant challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff/cross-complainant has the initial burden of establishing the fact of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Kaiser v. Aetna v. I.C. Deal (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 896, 903.)

The contacts identified by Plaintiff are insufficient to establish that Tirado is susceptible to general jurisdiction in the State of California. “A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial… continuous and systematic.’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) Here, the evidence shows that Tirado is neither incorporated in California, nor has a principal place of business in California. As the Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127 made clear, general jurisdiction should only be asserted when the evidence indicates that the defendant is “essentially at home” in the state. The Court cannot find that Tirado is essentially “at home” in California. (See Tirado Decl., e.g., ¶3.)

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the forum benefits [citation], and the ‘controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum.’ [Citations.]” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446.) “The test for whether a court may exercise ‘specific’ personal jurisdiction requires that the nonresident purposefully directed his acts to the forum state or otherwise purposefully established contacts with the forum state, that the cause of action be related to or arise or result from the acts or contacts in the forum, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the forum would be reasonable.” (Muckle v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 218, 227-228.) The “purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be hailed into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts [citations], or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. [Citations.]” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473.) Jurisdiction is properly invoked over defendants “who have purposefully ‘reach[ed] out beyond’ their state and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that ‘envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts’ in the forum state.” (Id. at 479-480.)

Our “analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with the persons who reside there.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 285). “[M]ere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum. (Id. at 278). “[A] defendant’s relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.” (Id. at 286.)

Here, Plaintiff relies upon language in Burger King that establishes jurisdiction where defendants have “purposefully ‘reach[ed] out beyond’ their state and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that ‘envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts’ in the forum state.” Burger King, supra, at 479-480. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Tirado has met this threshold of minimum contacts in California because she initiated the business agreement with Plaintiff, a resident of California, and the agreement called for installment payments by Plaintiff in California to Defendant in Mexico. The court finds Defendant Tirado’s conduct is insufficient to constitute “continuing and wide-ranging contacts” in California. Defendant Tirado was a resident of and domiciled in Mexico at the time of the agreement. She is alleged to have conducted fraudulent transactions with a single individual (Plaintiff) pursuant to a single agreement (the sale of transportation routes in Mexico). This case is closer to the facts in Walden v. Fiore where the high court held jurisdiction was improper. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the only link between Tirado and California is Plaintiff—not the State. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for California to exercise jurisdiction over Tirado.

Specially Appearing Defendant Tirado’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant KARLA GABRIELA TIRADO RIVERA. (See CCP §581(h).)

The Demurrer set for Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. is ADVANCED to this date and VACATED.