Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV42301, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42301    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendants PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC And Seth Kenney

Responding Party: Plaintiff Mamie Mitchell

T/R:     The Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash Summons and Second Amended Complaint.

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 reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mamie Mitchell’s lawsuit concerns the tragic shooting of Director of Photography Halyna Hutchins on October 21, 2021 while filming a motion picture in New Mexico, which resulted in Ms. Hutchins’ death. On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

Specially appearing defendants Seth Kenney and PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC move to quash service of Summons and the Second Amended Complaint.  

ANALYSIS

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 three-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.)

“Domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate substituted service.” (Allen v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1953) 41 Cal.2d 306, 310-11, quoting Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 U.S. 457, 462-63.) “While a person may, at any given time, have more than one residence, he or she may have only one domicile at a time. (In re Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1258.) “In order to establish a new domicile, a person must show ‘ “(1) physical presence *1259 at the new location with (2) an intention to remain there indefinitely.” ’ [Citations]” (Id. at 1258-59.)

Kenney states he has lived in Arizona since 2018. (Kenney Decl., ¶ 4.) (SAC, ¶ 2.) Kenney rented a home in Southern California for a year, with the intent to return to Arizona, and was present at the rental home only sporadically for no more than six months. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Kenney owns a single piece of real property in California for vacation purposes. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Kenney is not domiciled in California.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants maintained an interstate business-related model, affiliations, and connections with California by supplying “prop guns and blank and dummy ammunition” on film production-related jobs. Kenney’s declaration states that defendant PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC had a single business transaction in California more than three years ago. (Kenney Decl., ¶ 10.) Kenney declares that PDQ Arm and Prop primarily engages in business transactions in New Mexico, Texas, Montana, and Ohio. (Id.) Kenney was a consultant for Prop House Arsenal, a California-based business, from 2010 to 2015, but this was a temporary position and was before the incident in this lawsuit. (See id. at ¶ 15.) 

None of causes of action in this lawsuit arise out of these Defendants’ contacts with California. (See Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314 [“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.”].) “[T]he foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis ... is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 474, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297, quotations omitted).) The Court finds that the facts her do not satisfy this standard.

            In their supplemental reply, Defendants also note “since the hearing on the Motion in November 2023, this Court granted Specially Appearing Defendant Seth Kenney’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint in the related matter of Serge Svetnoy v. Rust Movie Productions LLC, et al., LASC No. 21STCV41392 on March 8, 2024, and Department 45 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse granted Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint in the related matter of Olga Solovey, et al. v. Rust Movie Productions, LLC, et al., LASC No. 23STCV02819 on March 4, 2024,” based on the same facts presented here. (Bekken Decl., ¶ 9; Exhibits B and C)

            The Court does not have general or specific jurisdiction over these Defendants. The motion is GRANTED.