Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00174, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00174    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: C

PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL – WHITTIER, et al. v. THE HEALTH PLAN FOUNDATION, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00174

HEARING: 1/31/23 @ 9:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The Health Plan Foundation, Inc.’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant The Health Plan Foundation, Inc. (“THPF”) moves to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 418.10.

A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.  (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)

When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met.  (Jewish Defense Org. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4^th 1045, 1054-55.)  This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.  (Id. at 1055.) 

GENERAL JURISDICTION:  General jurisdiction may lie in situations where a foreign corporation’s “continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.   (International Shoe (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 318.)  “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so "continuous and systematic" as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.”  (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851.)  The cause of action need not be related to the defendant’s contacts.  (Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4^th 258, 265-266.) 

Here, THPF is not incorporated nor does it have its principal place of business in California.  (Ralston Decl., ¶¶ 4, 10.)  Thus, it is not subject to general jurisdiction.

SPECIFIC JURISDICTION:  Specific jurisdiction results when the defendant's contacts with the forum state, though not enough to subject the defendant to the general jurisdiction of the forum, are sufficient to subject the defendant to suit in the forum on a cause of action related to or arising out of those contacts.  (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569-570.)  Specific jurisdiction exists if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.  (Id. at 570.)  Courts must additionally evaluate the burden on the defendant of appearing in the forum, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the claim, the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief within the forum, judicial economy, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.  (Id.) 

THPF has never contracted to supply services or materials in California.  Ralston Decl., ¶ 16.) THPF does not, and never has, engaged in any advertising or the performance of any services in California. (Id., ¶ 11.) THPF has not availed itself of the jurisdiction of the courts of California. (Id., ¶ 14.)  THPF has never had any contact, communication, interaction or relationship with PIH Health Hospital – Whittier or PIH Health Hospital – Downey.  (Id., ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.  Thus, the court finds that THPF did not purposefully avail itself of this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.