Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00017741-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2023-00017741-CU-PO-CTL FITZGERALD VS WATERMAN TRANSPORT INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Service of Summons, 06/13/2023

The motion to quash service of summons and complaint is GRANTED.

A. The court rules on defendant's evidentiary objections as follows: Objection 6 is sustained. In addition, objection 3 is sustained as to the clause beginning with 'said to Schulte' and objection 5 is sustained as to the second sentence. The remaining objections are overruled.

B. 'When a defendant moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.' Buskirk v. Buskirk (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 523, 530. 'The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.' Id. With respect to general jurisdiction, '[t]he paradigmatic locations where general jurisdiction is appropriate over a corporation are its place of incorporation and its principal place of business.' Ranza v. Nike, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 1059, 1069. In this case, it is undisputed that defendant is a Delaware corporation that maintains a principal place of business in Alabama. (Grehan Decl., ¶ 2.) While there is evidence that defendant's ships made frequent port calls in California in the three years prior to the incident, such activity is not pervasive enough to render defendant 'essentially at home' in California. See Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 138. Moreover, even if California is a key forum for defendant's business activities, plaintiff has failed to assess those contacts in light of defendant's overall business. 'The general jurisdiction inquiry examines a corporation's activities worldwide – not just the extent of its contacts in the forum state – to determine where it can be rightly considered at home.' Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1070. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that California has general jurisdiction over defendant.

Plaintiff has likewise failed to establish that California can exercise specific jurisdiction over defendant.

'A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits or purposefully directed his activities at the forum state; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with the principles of fair play and substantial justice.' Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 937, 964.

Here, assuming without deciding that defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in California, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037826  48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FITZGERALD VS WATERMAN TRANSPORT INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00017741-CU-PO-CTL that his claims 'arise out of or relate to' defendant's activities. Plaintiff's claims are for injuries based on an assault that took place outside California. The mere fact that defendant's vessel happened to be briefly docked in San Diego a few weeks before the assault does not establish the requisite 'affiliation between the forum and underlying controversy.' Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919. There is no evidence that the vessel's docking in San Diego had anything to the assault. Nor is there evidence suggesting that San Diego was the only possible port call at which defendant could have removed plaintiff's assailant prior to the assault. In sum, the court finds that the nexus between defendant's activities in California and the injury plaintiff suffered is simply too attenuated to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant. See Roman v. Liberty University, Inc.

(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 681-82 (concluding that Liberty University's recruiting efforts in California were unrelated to injuries football recruit suffered during a physical assault on the Virginia campus).

Plaintiff's reliance on Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez (1966) 384 U.S. 202 does not compel a different conclusion with respect to either general or specific jurisdiction. Suarez is a venue case. 'Venue is separate from personal jurisdiction.' Buskirk, 53 Cal.App.5th at 538.

C. This ruling is dispositive of the entire case. All future dates, including the CMC set for today, are hereby vacated.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037826  48