Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV49851, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49851    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 19, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendants Chi Cheng Chang and Shih En Chang

Responding Party: Plaintiff Pacific Department Stores Co. Ltd.

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supplemental briefing.

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, 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)(1).)  “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.)  

A non-resident defendant may be subject to general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.  A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when the defendant is domiciled in the forum state, or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic.  (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.)  Factors that prove a defendant’s contacts are continuous and systematic include maintenance of an office, presence of employees, use of bank accounts, and the marketing or selling of products in the forum state.  (Id.)  The factors are not exhaustive but provide guidance as to the type and degree of contacts the defendant must have to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction.  (Id.)

            Defendants move to quash service of summons on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to properly affect service and because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. At the initial hearing on this motion, the Court determined that Plaintiff properly affected service and continued the hearing to allow for jurisdictional discovery.

            Defendants assert they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because they spend “most” of their time in Taiwan and own “most” of their properties in Taiwan. Following discovery, Plaintiff has presented evidence showing Defendants own multiple real properties in California, Defendants have California bank accounts, cars registered in California, and Defendants have filed tax returns in California. From this evidence, it is clear Defendants have continuous and systematic contacts with California. Defendants are subject to general jurisdiction here.

            Defendants’ motion to quash is DENIED.