Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01704, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01704    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: C

LEE v. BASE HILL, INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01704

HEARING:  4/17/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Specially Appearing Defendants Base Hills, Inc. dba Jan Point; Nellis Building Service, Inc.; and Sunny Kim’s motion to quash service of summons of Nellis Building Services, Inc. is GRANTED. The motion to quash service of summons of Base Hills, Inc. dba Jan Point and Sunny Kim is STRICKEN. 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

The motion is unopposed as of April 15, 2024.

This is an employment law action. Specially Appearing Defendants Base Hills, Inc. dba Jan Point; Nellis Building Service, Inc.; and Sunny Kim move to quash service of summons served on them.

Request for Judicial Notice

Specially Appearing Defendants request the court to take judicial notice of the “right to sue notice” issued by Nevada Equal Rights Commission on January 25, 2023 under California Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).

The Court grants judicial notice based on California Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

Quash Service of Summons

Specially Appearing Defendants move to quash service of summons on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over named defendant Nellis Building Service, Inc. Specially Appearing Defendants also move on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all three named defendants.

          Personal Jurisdiction

Due process allows state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who were served with process elsewhere only if those defendants have such minimum contacts with the state to ensure that an assertion of jurisdiction will not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.) When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that “minimum contacts” exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Mihlon v. Super. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) This may be done through presentation of declarations, with opposing declarations received in response. (Aquila, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nellis Building Services, Inc. is a Nevada Corporation with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Specially Appearing Defendants argue that minimum contacts do not exist between named defendant Nellis Building Services, Inc. and the state of California.

This motion is unopposed. Thus, Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate that minimum contacts exist between named defendant Nellis Building Service, Inc.

          Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be raised in a special appearance by a motion to quash service of summons. (Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036-1037.) The motion to quash service of summons lies on the ground that the court lacks personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction. (Id. at 1036.)

Thus, Specially Appearing Defendants’ arguments about lack of subject matter jurisdiction over all three defendants is STRICKEN.

The motion is GRANTED in part and STRICKEN in part.