Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02550, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCV02550    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/22/25

Case #24CHCV02550

MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Motion filed on 8/22/24.  Amended Notice of Motion & Motion filed 1/9/25.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Crossway Health Share, NFP; Sunhee Kim and Carey Kim (specially appearing)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff JL Plastic Surgery

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction or staying and/or dismissing the action for inconvenient forum. 

RULING: The motion to quash is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDUDRAL HISTORY

The action arises out of Defendant Crossway Health Share, NFP, an Illinois Not-for-Profit corporation’s (Crossway) alleged breach of a loan agreement with Plaintiff JL Plastic Surgery, a California Corporation (Plaintiff).  (Complaint ¶¶9-12, Ex.A).  On 7/12/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Crossway and Defendants Sunhee Kim (Sunhee) and Carey Kim (Carey) (collectively, the Kims) who reside in Illinois.

On 7/23/24, Crossway and Sunhee were personally served with the summons and complaint in Illinois.  (See Proofs of Service filed 7/26/24  On 8/6/24, Carey was personally served with the summons and complaint in Illinois.  (See Proof of Service filed 8/7/24). 

On 8/22/24, Crossway and the Kims (collectively, Defendants) filed and served the instant motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction or stay and/or dismiss for inconvenient forum.  The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 2/19/25.  On 1/9/25, Defendants rescheduled the hearing to 5/22/25 and filed and served an amended notice of motion that same day.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.    

The complaint concedes that Defendants are not residents of California.  (See Complaint ¶¶2-4). 

When a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposing personal jurisdiction in California.  Mihlon (1985) 169 CA3d 703, 710.  A plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional criteria are met.  Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH (1988) 206 CA3d 1222, 1232.  If the plaintiff meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.  Buchanan (2015) 241 CA4th 1353, 1362.

The court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant by either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction.  General jurisdiction can be established over a non-resident defendant by: (1) personally serving the defendant in California (Marriage of Fitzgerald & King (1995) 39 CA4th 1419, 1426); (2) the defendant being domiciled in California at the time the cause of action arose (Kroopf (1986) 183 CA3d 1351, 1358; (3) the defendant consenting to jurisdiction in California (Miller-Leigh LLC (2007) 152 CA4th 1143, 1149); and/or (4) the defendant is essentially at home in California (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919; Jensen (2019) 31 CA5th 682, 686.

Defendants submit evidence establishing that Plaintiff cannot establish general personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants.  (See Mills Decl., Ex.A ¶¶2-4, 10, Ex.B; Carey Decl.; Sunhee Decl.).  Plaintiff seems to concede that it cannot establish general personal jurisdiction over Defendants as the opposition only addresses specific personal jurisdiction.  (See Opposition, generally).

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants if: (1) the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum; (2) the claim arises out of, relates to, or results from the defendants’ forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.  Snowney (2005) 35 C4th 1054, 1062; Ford Motor Co. (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1025.  Despite Defendants dedicating approximately 3 pages in the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the motion to arguing that this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Defendants, the opposition curiously argues that “Defendants failed to address specific jurisdiction in their Motion.”  (See Motion Memo of Ps&As, p.7:7-p.9:18; Opposition, p.8:11-13, p.2:12-13, p.2:16).

Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Defendants are subject to personal specific jurisdiction in California.

No Purposeful Availment

Defendants purposefully avail themselves to jurisdiction in California when they direct their activities toward the forum so that they should expect, by virtue of the benefit they receive, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on their contacts with the forum.  Pavlovich (2002) 29 C4th 262, 269.

The evidence establishes that the Kims are residents of Illinois and work in Illinois.  (See Carey Decl.; Sunhee Decl.; Complaint ¶¶3-4).  At the time of the alleged incident and currently, the Kims are/were employed by Crossway, an Illinois Corporation.  (See Carey Decl. ¶5; Sunhee Decl. ¶5).  Additionally, Crossway was incorporated in the State of Illinois and has operated as an Illinois Corporation during the time in question.  (Carey Decl. ¶6; Sunhee Decl. ¶6).  The evidence establishes that Plaintiff knows Crossway is an Illinois Corporation because Plaintiff’s  President, Dr. James Lee, is a former Director of Crossway.  (See Carey Decl. ¶7; Sunhee Decl. ¶7).  The fact that Plaintiff, a California corporation, entered into a contract with Crossway, an Illinois corporation, does not provide a sufficient basis for Defendants, two of whom are not even parties to the contract, to expect to be sued in California.  The Agreement was based on a loan to establish and support an Illinois Corporation, which all parties understood.  (See Complaint ¶¶9-12, Ex.A).  Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants purposefully availed themselves to jurisdiction in California based on a personal friendship between Jodi Kho, the wife of Plaintiff’s principal, Dr. James Lee, and Sunhee; activities regarding a corporation which is not a party to this action; and the Kims’ daughter attending school in California and working for the unrelated corporation is also unavailing to show that Defendants would expect to be hauled into court in California.  Even if the Kims activity in California related to the non-party corporation could be considered as purposeful availment, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the other factors for specific jurisdiction.

Claim Does Not Arise From/Relate to Defendants’ Forum Related Activities   

This prong is satisfied by a substantial nexus or connection between the defendants’ forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim.  Vons Co. Inc. (1996) 14 C4th 434, 448.  The phrase “relates to” incorporates limits to protect defendants foreign to a forum.  Preciado (2023) 87 CA5th 964, 980.  Even Ford Motor Co., supra, relied on by Plaintiffs provides that while “…some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing.  That does not mean anything goes.”  Id. at 1026.  The Supreme Court went on to state that “[i]n the sphere of specific jurisdiction, the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum.”  Id.  The Supreme Court noted that it has held that specific jurisdiction attaches when a company like Ford serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there.  Id. at 1027. 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish that its claims arise from or relate Defendants forum related activities.  Again, Plaintiffs rely on the re-building of a friendship that started years earlier based on Kho’s and the Kims’ Christian beliefs, the Kims’ activities regarding a non-party corporation, and their daughter attending school in California.  The foregoing activities are not related to the loan contract between Plaintiff and Crossway which forms the basis of this action.  Additionally, unlike the defendant (Ford) in Ford Motor Co., Plaintiff has not established that Defendants serve a market for a product in California and its claims arise out of and/or are related to the service of such market.  Id.

Exercise of Jurisdiction in California Is Not Reasonable

For jurisdiction in California to be reasonable, it must “comport with fair play and substantial justice.”  Yahoo! Inc. (2001) 145 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1177 citing Burger King Corp. (1985) 471 U.S. 476.  In determining reasonableness of jurisdiction, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the forum state; (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the forum; (3) the extent of the conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant's state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.  Id.   

Since Plaintiff failed to meet its burden with regard to the first two factors for specific jurisdiction, the burden never shifted to Defendants to establish a compelling case of unreasonableness.  Even if Plaintiff had met its burden with regard to purposeful availment and the claim arising out of or being related to Defendants’ forum related activity, the reasonableness factors weigh in favor of not subjecting Defendants to jurisdiction in California.

As noted above, the evidence shows that Defendants live, work, and are incorporated in Illinois. The contract which forms the basis of this action was negotiated and entered into electronically and not in the State of California.  (See Carey Decl.; Sunhee Decl.).  Defendants would have to travel to a foreign state to defend claims against a corporation run and operated out of Illinois. Additionally, the Kims are not parties to the agreement which forms the basis of this action.  As such, it would be unreasonable to force Defendants to defend the claims in California when Plaintiff has an alternate forum available in Illinois.   

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.  The service of the summons and complaint is quashed based on lack of personal jurisdiction.