Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00032827-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2023-00032827-CU-OR-CTL KOLLENBORN VS THE ESTATE OF JEANNE LESSNER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Sherry Germain and Laurie Mears (as individuals)'s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Preliminary Matters Plaintiff Frances Kollenborn's unopposed request for judicial notice of a quitclaim deed, unlawful detainer complaint, and unlawful detainer judgment is granted.

Analysis 'Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.' (David L. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 359, 366.) 'General jurisdiction permits a court to assert jurisdiction over a defendant based on a forum connection unrelated to the underlying suit,' whereas specific jurisdiction permits a court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant's suit-related conduct has created 'a substantial connection with the forum state.' (Ibid.) 'The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.' (Shearer v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 424, 430.) That burden must be met with 'competent evidence of jurisdictional facts,' such as 'affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.' (Rivelli v. Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 402.) Declarations must state 'specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction,' rather than 'vague assertions of ultimate facts.' (Id. at p. 408.) 'Even though a verified complaint may serve as an affidavit, statements made on information and belief will not sustain the burden of proof.' (Shearer, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 430.) General Jurisdiction A court can only exercise general jurisdiction if the defendant's contacts with the forum are 'so continuous and systemic as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum state. For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile.' (David L., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 366.) Kollenborn did not submit any evidence that either Germain or Mears had the type of continuous and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078853  38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  KOLLENBORN VS THE ESTATE OF JEANNE LESSNER [IMAGED]  37-2023-00032827-CU-OR-CTL systemic contacts necessary to exercise general jurisdiction. Both Germain and Mears are longtime residents of Virginia. They have never owned any real property in California, and they have no personal or business ties in California. As such, there is no basis for exercising general jurisdiction.

Specific Jurisdiction A court can only exercise specific jurisdiction if (1) the defendant has 'purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits or purposefully directed activities at forum residents'; (2) the controversy 'relate[s] to or arise[s] out of the defendant's forum-related activities'; and (3) exercising jurisdiction would 'comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' (David L., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 366.) Kollenborn submits evidence that Germain and Mears filed an unlawful detainer against her related to the California condominium at issue in this case and obtained a judgment for possession. However, the unlawful detainer was pursued by Germain and Mears as 'co-executor[s] of the estate of Jeanne Lessner.' As such, the unlawful detainer complaint and judgment are insufficient to show that German and Mears personally engaged in a forum-related activity that would permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction over them as individuals. (See, e.g., Jensen v. Jensen (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 682, 687–688 [nonresident who applied and was appointed to be a guardian ad litem in a suit pending in California involving real property located in California was not subject to specific jurisdiction in her individual capacity because her litigation-related contacts with the state were undertaken in a representative capacity].) Kollenborn also cites to various allegations in her verified complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 22 [alleging Germain and Mears 'interfered with Kolenborn's expected interest in the Subject Property'], 23 [alleging Germain and Mears 'were aware of Ms. Lessner's promise to Kollenborn' and 'caused Ms. Lessner to change her mind and thereby renege on her promised conveyance'], 24–25 [alleging Germain and Mears engaged in conduct 'for their own personal financial gain'].) However, these vague allegations are all made on information and belief and therefore do not establish a basis for exercising specific jurisdiction.

(Rivelli, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 408; Shearer, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 430.) Conclusion Kollenborn did not meet her burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over Germain and Mears in their individual capacities. The motion to quash is therefore granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078853  38