Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04241, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04241    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Vilardo v. Di Savoia, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV04241

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   2/8/2024

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:  (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her . . ..” (CCP § 418.10(a).) A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) “When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)  The plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”  (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868; see also Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1312-13 [“Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.”].)  

              “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.)

A non-resident defendant may be subject to either general or specific jurisdiction. (Elkman v. National States Insurance Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.)  “Where general jurisdiction cannot be established, a court may assume specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a particular case if the plaintiff shows the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; [ie.] the nonresident purposefully directed its activities at forum residents or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law. (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235.) Specific jurisdiction involves a 3-part test: (1) the nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”  (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054 [purposeful availment exists where a defendant performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state].)

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

The objections to the Coombes declaration are OVERRULED. Furthermore, the cited exhibits would be subject to judicial notice on the Court’s own motion.

Analysis

Defendant Emanuele Filiberto Di Savoia (Savoia) moves to quash service of the summons in this action, asserting that the Court does not have general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant.  Defendant explains that he is an Italian national, who has, at all relevant times, maintained his domicile in Italy. (Savoia Decl., ¶¶ 2, 12.) Defendant claims that he does not reside in Los Angeles, and that allegations to that effect are false. (Id.) Defendant also claims that he has spent only a few days in California while traveling. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Defendant contends that he is not employed by any of the named defendant entities. (Id.) Defendant disclaims ever having received compensation from the named defendant entities. (Id., ¶ 5.) Further, he asserts that the pled agreements bear no nexus to California and only allege that Plaintiff “was a full time, permanent, non-exempt employee of the defendants” and that he “worked as a chef.” (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 7.) Defendant complains that the Complaint fails to allege how, why or even if he personally entered into the alleged verbal agreements identified in the complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff presents persuasive evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Spaghetti Connections, Prince of Venice and Di Savoia hired Plaintiff as a full time, permanent, non-exempt employee working as a chef. (Compl., ¶¶ 6-7, 9-13, 20-22, etc.) Critically, Defendant Spaghetti Connection LLC is a registered California corporation. According to Spaghetti’s statement of information filed in 2020, Defendant Savoia was the registered agent for service of process in California. (Coombes Decl., Ex. A.) Savoia was also its CEO as of their latest statement of Information in 2021. (Id., Ex. B.) Defendants operated a restaurant known as the Prince of Venice located in Los Angeles County. (Vilardo Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff received his employment contract from Defendant Savoia in October 2020. (Id., Ex. AA.) Plaintiff was also fired by Savoia on November 14, 2022. (Id., Ex. BB.) Plaintiff therefore demonstrates that Savoia was personally involved in the performance of Plaintiff’s alleged employment contract within California. Moreover, Savoia was operating a business within California which directly relates to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, Savoia subjected himself to the laws of the state of California. Under such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.  Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 10 days.