Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03054, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03054 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Infobeans, Inc. v. Grays Peak Capital GP LLC, et al.
Specially Appearing Defendant Scott Stevens’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Defective Service of Summons and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS the motion to quash service of summons.
Defendant Scott Stevens is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. On October 3, 2024, plaintiff Infobeans, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Grays Peak Capital GP LLC (Grays Peak), Scott Stevens (Stevens),and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and intentional misrepresentation.
On August 5, 2024, Defendant Stevens moved to quash service of the summons. On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On September 18, 2024, Stevens replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may move to quash service on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction by filing a noticed motion to quash the service of summons at any time before the expiration of its time to plead. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring him or her within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is, the facts requisite to an effective service. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449 [upon a defendant’s motion to quash, “the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.”]) Once the plaintiff establishes facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Ibid.)
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and D. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c); Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1483-1484 [court may take judicial notice of certificate of corporate defendant's status from Secretary of State].) However, the Court takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits B and C. “We may not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of a website.” (LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, 362 fn. 7 [from appeal of a decision involving a motion to quash service of a summons].)
DISCUSSION
Summary of Arguments
Defendant Stevens moves to quash the service of summons on the grounds that he was not served at his usual place of business. Stevens contends that he does not reside in or conduct business at the Santa Fe Springs address where the summons was served, and that he resides in New York, not California. Stevens contends that the Santa Fe Springs address is not his customary place of employment or even his own business enterprise. Stevens contends Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence for substitute service since the service in question was performed at the Santa Fe Springs address. Stevens then contends this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and that the Court should quash service as to him because he lacks the requisite contacts with California to support the exercise of general or specific personal jurisdiction over him. Stevens contends he has no continuous contacts with California, and that he did not engage in any activities directed toward California.
In opposition, Plaintiff contends Stevens was properly served with the summons because the registered process server made three attempts at the Santa Fe Springs address, and the process server was told that Stevens was, “not in.” Plaintiff contends the Santa Fe Springs address is proper because of Grays Peak’s relationships with Valore Ventures and McMurray Stern Inc. Plaintiff then contends Stevens waived any objections to service by attending and participating in the case management conference for this case, which constituted a general appearance. Plaintiff further contends Stevens’ motion to quash is untimely because the deadline for Stevens to bring this motion was November 25, 2023, i.e., one month after service was performed on October 25, 2023. Plaintiff then contends Stevens has sufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction.
Analysis
The Court finds the address at which service was completed here does not appear to be Stevens’ usual place of business. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b); Stevens Decl., ¶ 10.) Stevens indicates that he resides in New York, not California, is not domiciled in California, and does not have any offices in California. (Stevens Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff therefore has the burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction here. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.)
The Court does not find Plaintiff has established that the Court has jurisdiction over Stevens in this matter. The corporate certificates of status from the California Secretary of State Plaintiff submitted with the opposition are for Valore Ventures, Inc. and McMurray Stern Inc., not Plaintiff or even Grays Peak. (See Requests for Judicial Notice, Exs. A, D.) These certificates do not indicate that Stevens or even Grays Peak has a connection to the Santa Fe Springs address. (See Id.) The Court also reiterates that it declined to take judicial notice of the website documents Plaintiff submitted for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c); Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1483-1484.) The Court also finds the responses to the process server indicating, “not in,” when attempting to serve Stevens to be vague and insufficient evidence to establish that the Santa Fe Springs address was Stevens’ usual place of business. (See Patel Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E.)
Moreover, the Court does not find that Stevens’ counsel’s appearance at the Case Management Conference on May 29, 2024 constitutes a general appearance. Stevens’ counsel indicates having stated at that Case Management Conference that the appearance was a special appearance on behalf of Stevens for the purpose of contesting service of process and the Court’s jurisdiction over Stevens. (Amadi Reply Dec., ¶ 2.) The minute order from May 29, 2024, indicates that the Court and counsel for Stevens conferred on the status of proper substituted service. (Minute Order (5/29/24).) Also, the Case Management Statement shows it was only submitted on behalf of Grays Peak. (Case Management Statement (5/13/24).) The Court finds all of this evidence insufficient to establish that Stevens meaningfully participated in the Case Management Conference, thereby generally appearing in this action and waiving any jurisdictional defects regarding service of process. (See Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1757.)
Furthermore, the Court also does not find Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence of minimum contacts with California for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s opposition cites no evidence that Stevens engaged in various business activities and communications with California. (See Opp., 7:3-14.)
With respect to the timeliness of Stevens’ motion, Plaintiff contends it is late. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.) Service was purportedly completed by substitute service on November 5, 2023, i.e., ten days after mailing the summons and complaint on October 25, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a).) Stevens therefore had until December 5, 2023, to move to quash service of the summons. (Id., § 418.10, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Obrecht, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 16.) Plaintiff contends that Stevens did not do so, and his motion is therefore also untimely. However, the Court finds that the attempted service does not satisfy the statutory procedures as Stevens was not served at his home, usual place of abode, or usual place of business. There is no crucial connection between the address where substituted served was effectuated and Stevens. Therefore, the Court will decide the motion on the merits for good cause.
The Court declines to permit Plaintiff to conduct discovery before the issue of jurisdiction is decided. Stevens correctly contends that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction. (See Opp., 7:22-8:8; In re Automobile Case I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 113.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion to quash service of summons.
Defendant Scott Stevens is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.