Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV41392, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41392    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Seth Kenney

Responding Party: Plaintiff Serge Svetnoy

T/R:     SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT 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 and reply.

“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 either general or specific jurisdiction. (See Elkman v. National States Insurance Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.)  General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic. (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.) Specific jurisdiction involves a 3-part test in California. California courts adopt the same test as the test used by the court in Boschetto v. Hansing (9th Cir. Cal. 2008) 539 F.3d 1011,1016: (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.” Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 [applying California law].).” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (Rambam) (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.)

Specially Appearing Defendant Seth Kenney moves to quash service of summons on the ground that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over him. The incident at issue occurred in New Mexico. Plaintiff alleges that Kenney supplied firearms and related props to a New Mexico film set, on which an accidental shooting occurred. Kenney declares that he is a resident of Arizona and owns a business headquartered in Arizona. Kenney owns a vacation property in California but represents that he has spent only seven days there in the last four years. Kenney also rented an apartment for one year in California after the Rust lawsuits were filed, with the intention of returning to Arizona after the lease expired. Kenney states that he spent six non-consecutive months in the apartment.

Kenney argues that there is no general jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Arizona, and there is no specific jurisdiction over him because the claims in this action do not arise from his contacts with California. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Kenney has purposefully availed himself of the benefits of California by owning property here. Plaintiff argues that his contacts with California relate to this action because he chose to work on a production that involved California financing, actors, crew, and production personnel.

The Court lacks either general or specific jurisdiction over Kenney. Though Kenney has had various contacts with California over the last several years, the claims in this case do not arise out of, or have a substantial connection to, those contacts. (See Virtualmagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal. App.4th 228, 241.)

Kenney’s motion to quash is GRANTED.