Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2023-00025427-CU-CR-CTL 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00025427-CU-CR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Civil Rights Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2023-00025427-CU-CR-CTL ESPARZA VS. ECI SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant ECI Software Solutions, Inc.'s motion to quash service for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Defendant brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1). Where a defendant moves to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction, 'the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.' (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) 'The plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts. Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof.

Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.' (Id.) Only after the plaintiff has met this initial burden does the burden shift to the defendant 'to present a compelling case demonstrating that the exercise of jurisdiction by our courts would be unreasonable.' (Id. at p. 110-11.) A court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, such as Defendant here, may be either general or specific. (See, e.g., Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) For Defendant to be subject to general jurisdiction, its contacts with California must be substantial, continuous, and systematic. (Id.) In effect, Defendant's contact with California must be 'so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.' (Id. at p. 446.) For Defendant to be subject to specific jurisdiction: (1) it must have purposefully availed itself of California benefits; (2) the complaint arises out of Defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.' (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.) Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden of showing either general or specific personal jurisdiction. The court agrees. First, there is no legitimate dispute regarding general jurisdiction. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, has no offices or property in California, has only 22 (remote) employees out of 1652 that live in California, and no more than approximately 7% of its clients and total revenue arise from California.

Although Defendant is registered to do business in California, this is not alone sufficient to establish general jurisdiction. (See, e.g., Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 268 ['[D]esignation of an agent for service of process and qualification to do business in California alone are insufficient to permit general jurisdiction.'].) The court also is not persuaded that Penal Code section 502, subdivision (j), was intended by the Legislature to establish personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants for whom it would otherwise be lacking. Plaintiff cites to no case that so holds, and the court is not aware of any such case that supports Plaintiff's position.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007005 9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ESPARZA VS. ECI SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC 37-2023-00025427-CU-CR-CTL Second, Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that establishes specific jurisdiction. Given the requirement that specific jurisdiction must be founded on facts connected to the claims at issue, Defendant must have purposefully availed itself of California benefits using the website that lies at the center of Plaintiff's claims. (See David L v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 359, 362; see also Pavlovich v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 273 [California follows the effects test, which requires the plaintiff to provide evidence of express aiming or intentional targeting].) But Defendant does not sell any products directly through its website, nor does the website directly and specifically solicit business from California residents; rather, the website is generally available to anyone who comes across it both nationally and internationally. (Compare Shisler v. Sander Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1261 [no specific jurisdiction where website merely advertised vehicles and presumably accepted credit applications, and did not specifically target California residents] with Thurston v. Fairfield Collectibles of Georgia, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1231, 1240 ['[M]aking a substantial number of sales of goods or services to California residents via one's own website constitutes purposeful availment.'] and Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1064 [specific jurisdiction established where the defendant's website specifically targeted California residents by 'touting the proximity of their hotels to California and providing driving directions from California to their hotels' on the website].) Indeed, Plaintiff himself readily admits that he did not visit the website because he was solicited by Defendant, nor did he purchase any products or services from Defendant; rather, he is a 'tester' who seeks out websites 'to ensure that companies abide by the privacy obligations imposed by federal law.' (Complaint, ¶ 3.) In sum, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007005 9