TENTATIVE RULING

Specially Appearing Defendant KM Partners’ Motion for Relief from Default and to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Specially Appearing Defendant KM Partners to give notice. 

REASONING

Specially Appearing Defendant KM Partners (“KM Partners”) moves the Court for an order setting aside the default entered against it on February 29, 2024 on the ground that this Court lacks power to exercise personal jurisdiction over KM Partners because there is no basis for such jurisdiction in California, making the default void, and KM Partners was misled by its co-defendants to stand idle and not respond to Plaintiff Lubor Hlavacek (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint because the co-defendants represented that they would resolve this litigation. No party has filed an opposition to this motion.

“Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties. When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.” (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249, quotation marks and citation omitted.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), the Court may “set aside any void judgment or order,” and “a void judgment may be set aside at any time” (Milrot v. Stamper Medical Corp. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 182, 188). It is proper to bring a motion to vacate a default on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, i.e., a direct attack on the default, as KM Partners has done here. (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1250.)

California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitutions of California and the United States. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions “if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich), quotation marks omitted.) “A court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” (Sher v. Johnson (9th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (Sher); see also Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445 (Vons) [stating same].)

“A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1168.) “If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Ibid.)

A court may assert general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant’s activities in the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) Jurisdiction is specific when the defendant’s contacts with the state are not substantial, continuous, and systematic, but “the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state in relation to the cause of action.” (Sher, supra, 911 F.2d at p. 1361.) “Under the minimum contacts test, an essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in that State.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268, quotation marks omitted.) “The defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” (Sher, supra, 911 F.2d at p. 1361.)

KM Partners’ moving papers and evidence adequately establish that it is not a California entity, nor does it have substantial, continuous, and systematic contact with California. KM Partners is a limited liability company organized in Missouri, it maintains its principal place of business in Kansas, and its manager, Donald Friend, resides in Kansas. (Mot., Friend Decl. ¶ 2.) KM Partners is a privately held company that does not engage with consumers in California or elsewhere, it does not maintain a public website, it does not offer any services to the public, it exists for a single purpose to own rights to the death benefits from various insurance policies, it does not have any employees in California or elsewhere, it does not maintain any office or physical presence in California, and it had no interactions with Plaintiff before or after this action was filed. (Mot., Friend Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.) KM Partners has not had any contacts with the State of California since its inception in 2018, it is set up to require majority approval for any action to be performed on behalf of the entity, and Krupin Capital, LLC is a minority member of KM Partners, such that it cannot act unilaterally on behalf of or bind KM Partners. (Mot., Friend Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

This evidence tends to show that an exercise of personal jurisdiction over KM Partners is not proper here. The proof of service shows that KM Partners was not served in California, as it was served by mail in Missouri, KM Partners is not domiciled in California, it is a Missouri limited liability company, it maintains its principal place of business in Kansas, and it did not consent to personal jurisdiction in California or make a general appearance in this action. Further, although Plaintiff has pled that KM Partners does business in California (Compl. ¶ 5), this is not supported by the evidence provided by KM Partners, which shows that only Krupin Capital is domiciled in California, but Krupin Capital cannot act unilaterally on behalf of or bind KM Partners. Moreover, there is no evidence that KM Partners conducted business with Plaintiff or aimed any acts at the State of California.

It is axiomatic that “[a] plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion, thus providing no basis for exercising jurisdiction here, i.e., Plaintiff provides no evidence to dispute KM Partners’ evidence. Accordingly, the default entered against KM Partners is void for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Specially Appearing Defendant KM Partners’ Motion for Relief from Default and to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.