Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV42301, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42301    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Mamie Mitchell sued Defendants Alexander R. Baldwin, III (Baldwin) and El Dorado Pictures, Inc. based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained when Baldwin discharged a loaded gun towards Plaintiff. 

Cross-Complainant Baldwin filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, David Halls, Seth Kenney, PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC, and Sarah Zachry (collectively, Cross-Defendants).  Cross-Defendant Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (Gutierrez-Reed) appears specially and moves to quash the service of the summons and cross-complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Baldwin opposes the motion.  Gutierrez-Reed replies to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)  And “[a] defendant or cross-defendant may make a motion under this section and simultaneously answer, demur, or move to strike the complaint or cross-complaint.  [n]o act by a party who makes a motion under this section, including filing an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike constitutes an appearance, unless the court denies the motion made under this section. If the court denies the motion made under this section, the defendant or cross-defendant is not deemed to have generally appeared until entry of the order denying the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (e)(1).)

“[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)  It is thus upon the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.)  If plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the existence of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”  (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.)  The trial court has discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow plaintiff to conduct discovery on the jurisdictional issues.  (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173.) 

Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who have “minimum contacts” with the forum state. Minimum contacts exist when the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, internal quotations omitted.)

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are substantial[,] continuous and systematic. In such a case, it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relationship to the forum. Such a defendant's contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445-446, internal quotations & citations omitted.)

Even if a nonresident defendant does not have sufficient contacts with California such that the defendant is subject to suit in California generally, the defendant may nonetheless be subject to jurisdiction in California for claims based on the defendant’s activities in the state. To assert “limited” or “specific” personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (a) the out-of-state defendant purposefully established contacts with the forum state; (b) the plaintiff’s cause of action “arises out of” or is “related to” defendant’s contacts with the forum state; and (c) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-478.)

Here, Gutierrez-Reed argues the Court lacks both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Gutierrez-Reed.  Gutierrez-Reed advances her own declaration in support of the instant motion.  Gutierrez-Reed avers to the following: during the relevant time-period,  Gutierrez-Reed was employed by Rust Movie Production, LLC to work as the Key Assistant Props on the set of the movie Rust, on location in the State of New Mexico.  (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 4.)  Gutierrez-Reed never owned or operated any business in the State of California. (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 5.)  Gutierrez-Reed’s was employed in the State of California for two days as a production assistant in 2015.  (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 6.)  Gutierrez-Reed has never been a member of any unions in the State of California. (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 7.)  Gutierrez-Reed acknowledges she used the residence of a friend living in the State of California as a mailing address on occasion.  (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 8.) However, Gutierrez-Reed never lived or resided at that address.  (Ibid.)  At all relevant times, Gutierrez-Reed is a non-resident of the State of California and is not living or otherwise present in the State.  (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶ 9.)  For more than twenty years, Gutierrez-Reed has been a resident of the State of Arizona. (Gutierrez-Reed Dec ¶ 10.)

Further, because the acts alleged in both the underlying complaint and cross-complaint occurred outside of California and she uses a California mailing address on occasion, Gutierrez-Reed argues it is not foreseeable she would be subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction over her.  Gutierrez-Reed also argues that even if minimum contacts are established, a California court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Ms. Gutierrez-Reed would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice seeing as the incident at issue took place in the State of New Mexico, and the underlying claims are raised by a resident of the State of New York.  

In opposition Baldwin argues Gutierrez-Reed is subject to specific jurisdiction of the Court because she purposefully availed herself of the forum state based on her previous jobs on the sets of California-produced films and using a California mailing address at the time of the incident.  Baldwin highlights that Gutierrez-Reed admits that she (1) worked as a production assistant in the State of California in 2015 and (2) used the residence of a friend living in the State of California as a mailing address on occasion.  (Gutierrez-Reed Dec. ¶¶ 6, 8.)  Baldwin further argues that Gutierrez-Reed’s choice to use California mailing address was done with the express purpose of reaping the personal and professional benefits associated with such an address—benefits ordinarily available only to residents.  Baldwin further attests that by Gutierrez-Reed engaging in employment relationship with numerous California parties, such as Armorer and Key Assistant Props, created continuing obligations between Gutierrez-Reed and residents of California, and further establishes that she has availed herself of the privilege of conducting business in California and purposely derived a benefit from those interstate activities.  Baldwin claims that Gutierrez-Reed contracted with and continuously interacted with California contacts in a professional capacity prior to and during filming of the Rust movie at issue.  However, Baldwin does not advance any evidence to support the last contention.  

In reply Gutierrez-Reed argues first that Baldwin has failed to establish the initial element of whether Gutierrez-Reed purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in California because the only evidence Baldwin relied on upon was Gutierrez-Reed’s use of a friend’s address in California.  Further, Gutierrez-Reed attests that the residence of other individuals involved with the production of the Rust film is immaterial to Gutierrez-Reed’s connection to California and does not further establish that she purposefully availed herself to California’s jurisdiction.  Next, Gutierrez-Reed argues that Baldwin fails to establish that how the underlying incident arose out of Gutierrez-Reed’s limited connections to California.  Additionally, Baldwin advances several contentions within his opposition which are not supported by admissible evidence.  Gutierrez-Reed concludes that the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over her would violate notions of fair play and substantial justice seeing as neither Gutierrez-Reed nor Baldwin are residents of California. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the current record, the Court finds Baldwin has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all personal jurisdictional criteria are met vis-à-vis Gutierrez-Reed.  In the alternative, Baldwin requests a continuance to allow Baldwin to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the issues presented by Gutierrez-Reed’s motion.  The Court grants Baldwin’s request to continue the hearing to permit Baldwin to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

Therefore, the Court continues the hearing to April 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32.  Baldwin shall file and serve a supplement opposition to the motion on or before April 7, 2023 and Gutierrez-Reed shall file and serve a supplement reply, if any, on or before April 19, 2023.  Any supplemental memorandum of points and authorities shall be limited to 7 pages (excluding supporting evidence). 

            Baldwin shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.