Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV42301, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42301    Hearing Date: March 7, 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.  

Baldwin then filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hannah Gutiérrez-Reed, David Halls, Seth Kenney, PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC, and Sarah Zachry (collectively, Cross-Defendants). 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Sarah Zachry (Zachry) appears specially and moves separately to quash service of the summons and cross-complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Baldwin opposes the motion.  Zachry replies to the opposition.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Evidence Code section 451, “[j]udicial notice shall be taken of the following: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution…(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. ” (Evid. Code, § 451, subds. (a), (f).) Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state. (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States…(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdictions of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a)-(d), (g), (h).)

Here, the Court grants Zachry’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the operative second amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Mamie Mitchell and the operative cross-complaint filed by Baldwin per Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d)(1).

EVIDENCE

With respect to Zachry’s evidentiary objections, the Court rules as follows:

1.     Sustained

2.     Sustained

3.     Sustained

4.     Sustained

5.     Sustained

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, Zachry argues this Court lacks both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Zachry.  Zachry advances her own declaration in support of the instant motion.  Zachry avers to the following:

Zachry worked as the props master on the set of Rust, which was filmed just outside of Santa Fe, New Mexico.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 2.)  Zachry lives in New Mexico and has been a resident of the State of New Mexico since she was born. (Zachry Dec. ¶ 3.)  Zachry graduated from the University of New Mexico in 2019, and prior to working on Rust she worked on approximately five other films, all of which were produced in New Mexico.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 4.) Zachry has never been a resident of the State of California, and she has not lived or worked in California.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 5.)  Zachry has not traveled to California for any purpose related to her employment with, or work on, the Rust production.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 6.)  The last time that she visited California was in 2019 when she traveled to the state to attend a friend’s wedding and she has not been to California at any time since then.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 6.)  Zachry states she has never been served with the November 17, 2021 complaint and the August 3, 2022 second amended complaint filed by Plaintiff.  (Zachry Dec. ¶ 6.)

Zachry argues that there is no allegation in the underlying complaint or the cross-complaint that Zachry’s work was conducted in California or that she received some benefit relating to the fact that some defendants reside in California.  Beyond erroneously alleging that Zachry “has consented to jurisdiction” in California, Zachary argues that the cross-complaint does not allege that she has any contacts with California sufficient for exerting personal jurisdiction over her. 

In opposition Baldwin argues Zachry is subject to specific personal jurisdiction of the Court because she purposefully availed herself of the forum state of California’s benefits by engaging in an employment relationship with numerous California parties.  Further, Baldwin argues Zachry’s negligent conduct arose from her contacts with California residents and affected California businesses.  Baldwin claims Zachry contracted and continuously interacted with California entities in a professional capacity before and during filming, and her negligence on the  Rust set directly caused the tragic death of Hutchins, the physical injury of Souza, as well as the injuries asserted in the cross-complaint.  However, Baldwin does not advance any evidence of the employment relationships and professional contacts Zachry purportedly has in or with California residents or entities. 

In reply, Zachry argues that Baldwin’s “evidence” supporting his contention that Zachry purposefully availed herself of forum benefits and established purposeful California contacts is set forth in the cross-complaint and is therefore inadmissible.  Zachry argues that Baldwin does not meet his burden of proof to establish the existence of any factual basis for a California court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over her.  Moreover, Zachry contends that Baldwin concedes in the opposition that there are no facts which support the exercise of general jurisdiction over her. 

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 Zachry.  In the alternative, Baldwin requests a continuance to allow Baldwin to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the issues presented by Zachry’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 May 22, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32.  Baldwin shall file and serve a supplement opposition to the motion on or before May 1, 2023 and Zachry shall file and serve a supplement reply, if any, on or before May 15, 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.