Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV03873, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03873    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to quash is CONTINUED TO ALLOW FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY.  This is a breach of contract case.  It concerns the sale of property in Mexico.  Defendant moves to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendant claims that he resides in Mexico and that the choice of law provision in the purchase agreement (naming Mexican law) is the equivalent of a forum selection provision.  He also claims that there is no special jurisdiction here.

Plaintiff claims that defendant is perjuring himself.  According to plaintiff, defendant runs an active company in California called ServCo.  And according to recent documents filed by defendant with the California Secretary of State and signed under penalty of perjury, he states that his residence address is in California.  Plaintiff asserts that defendant is in Mexico on a tourist visa—meaning he is not a Mexican resident—and came from California.  The visa does not allow defendant to live in Mexico permanently.  Plaintiff asserts that he knows this because he helped defendant obtain temporary residency.  To qualify for permanent residency, plaintiff contends that defendant must live in Mexico for 60 months, and he has only lived there 32 months.  Plaintiff also says that defendant lied in his application.  Defendant also states that there are many ties to California, including the notion that the money came from California to buy the property.  Plaintiff seeks to continue the hearing, asserting that he is in a difficult position and has health issues.  He says he cannot afford to travel for Los Angeles for this hearing and has to be in Mexico for a separate hearing there.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to allow plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.  If defendant is really a Californian, that would greatly affect whether there is no jurisdiction here.  The court will discuss timing with the parties.  Because the motion will not be decided today, the request to continue the hearing is MOOT.  The court also notes that plaintiff does not need leave of court to appear remotely unless it is for a hearing where live testimony will be taken or for a trial.  Plaintiff does, however, need to be sure to sign up with the service so that plaintiff can appear.

The court also notes that documents written in a foreign language must translated either with a stipulated translation or by a certified translator. 

Plaintiff has also requested certain relief.  The court will confirm that plaintiff is self-represented and may appear remotely for any hearing unless otherwise ordered or where live testimony will be taken.  If live testimony is to be taken, the court will determine whether plaintiff can appear remotely (most likely plaintiff can except for trial).  The court does not know if there are filing issues.