Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01123, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01123, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01123 Hearing Date: August 9, 2023 Dept: C

Lovell v. ultatel

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01123

HEARING: 8/9/23 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant, UltaTel, LLC’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

Defendant UltaTel, LLC (Defendant) moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP § 418.10.

Background

Plaintiff Anthony Lovell filed a complaint on April 13, 2023 on behalf of his corporation, National First Capital, Inc. alleging breach of contract against Defendant.

Legal Standard

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).)

“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472.) A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party under circumstances that would offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.)

When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Ibid.) “The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222.)

A defendant is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction if its contacts “are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127.) A nonresident defendant may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum “if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of 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.) This test does not require a “causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation.” (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026.) The “arise out” of standard “asks about causation,” but “relate to” does not. (Ibid.) “[W]hen a corporation has ‘continuously and deliberately exploited [a State’s] market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into [that State’s] court[s]’ to defend actions ‘based on’ products causing injury there.” (Id. at p. 1027.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has failed to establish his burden of proving Defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state. Here, Plaintiff has filed a complaint for breach of contract. Upon review of the contract, the court determines it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has not purposely availed itself of California benefits. Defendant corporation, with headquarters in Virginia, signed an agreement with Plaintiff corporation, based in New York. Further, the terms of the contract do not anticipate any performance to be completed California. The only contact to California apparent from the pleadings, is that of Plaintiff, individually. While Plaintiff signed the contract, he did so on behalf of the real party at interest, National First Capital, Inc. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish his burden of proving minimum contacts by Defendant to California. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant and service must be quashed.

Accordingly, Defendant, UltaTel, LLC’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.