Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00301, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00301    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This is a case for personal injury and other damages filed by Chris Szajner (Szajner) arising from an alleged bed bug infestation in his hotel room. He sues Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Park Hotels and Resorts Inc.,  Hilton Garden Inn Arcadia/Pasadena area, and individual Pedro Figueroa for these injuries, arising out of his stay at the Hilton Garden Inn in Arcadia in February-March of 2021. He alleges he awoke on February 12, 2021 with a rash and bug bites. He alleges he changed rooms but the problem persisted. On March 10, 2021, he sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with bedbug bites. The amended complaint filed February 10, 2023 indicates that he is suing on the following causes of action: (1)Battery, (2) Negligence,  (3)Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Fraudulent Concealment, (5) Private Nuisance, (6) Public Nuisance, and (7) Breach of Contract.

          This complaint was filed on February 9, 2023. On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff Szajner indicated that he was still attempting to serve the defendants in this case. (No proofs of service have been filed as of today.) On January 25, 2024, Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (Park Hotels) filed its motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed a late opposition on February 28, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on the same day.

          Per the reasoning below, the Court grants Park Hotels’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1) provides that a defendant, on or before the last day to plead, may file a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 

California’s “long-arm” statute provides for jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Code Civ. Proc. §410.10. 

The possible bases for jurisdiction in this state are the following: 

- Physical presence in the forum when served, aka “gotcha” jurisdiction; Burnham v. Superior Court (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 612; 

- Domicile in the forum state; Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 U.S. 457, 462; 

- General appearance in the action; Code Civ. Proc. §410.50(a); 

- Contractual consent/forum selection clause; National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent (1964) 375 U.S. 311, 315-316; 

- Minimum contacts; International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316; Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475. 

See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶3:131. 

          CCP Section 581 provides that an action may be dismissed without prejudice as to a defendant if the motion is made pursuant to CCP Section 418.10. (CCP § 581.)

III.     ANALYSIS

          a. General Jurisdiction

To exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, there must be such minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is allowed. (International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316; Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475.) Here, Park Hotels urges that this is not the case. In support, Park Hotels provides the declaration of its executive vice president and CFO, Sean Dell’Orto. (Dell’Orto Declaration.) He declares that Defendant Park Hotels is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. It does not and did not own, operate, lease, manage the Arcadia Hilton Garden Inn property. (Dell’Orto Declaration ¶ 4.) Additionally, Park Hotels is not a franchisor of the Property, does not employ persons at the subject property nor has responsibility for the property. (Id.) Lastly, he declares that Park Hotels does not conduct any continuous or systematic business activities in California. (Dell’Orto Declaration ¶ 4.)

          In opposition, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to demonstrate this Court has jurisdiction over Park Hotels. Instead, Plaintiff urges that “Counsel for Defendant did not attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the present matter.” (Opposition p. 1: 23-24.) However, there is no meet and confer requirement before filing a CCP Section 418.10 motion.

As Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and the Defendant has offered evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that it cannot exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant Park Hotels. (See Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 217, referencing Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.)

b. Specific Jurisdiction

To exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be a substantial connection with a business relationship defendant has purposefully formed with California. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 448.) Here, Park Hotels urges that this is not the case. Despite Plaintiff’s allegations that Park Hotels owns and operates the subject property, Park Hotels urges that it does not do so. In support, Park Hotels provides the declaration of its executive vice president and CFO, as described above. Its attorney declares that Park Hotels does not own, lease, operate, manage, occupy or control the Arcadia Hilton Garden Inn property. (Dell’Orto Decl. ¶ 4.) He further declares that Park Hotels has no business relationship with the property, its employees or the state of California. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to demonstrate this Court has jurisdiction over Park Hotels. As Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and the Defendant has offered evidence that it is not subject to specific jurisdiction, the Court finds that it cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant Park Hotels.

In sum, Park Hotels has provided evidence that it is not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in California.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

           Specially appearing entity Park Hotels’ motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Park Hotels is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT