Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03503, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03503    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Specially appearing Defendant Alesia Sulock (“Sulock”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff Hunter Nation (“Plaintiff”) has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

“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).) 

“[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.)

California’s long-arm statute grants its courts the power to assert personal jurisdiction over out-of-state parties to the maximum extent that the state and federal constitutions allow. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) 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. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) 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.” (Id. at p. 316.) The primary focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry is the relationship of the defendant to the forum state. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773 (hereafter Bristol-Myers).)

“Minimum contacts exist where the defendant’s conduct in the forum state is such that he should reasonably anticipate being subject to suit there, and it is reasonable and fair to force him to do so.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 795, citing World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297; Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 92; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.)

Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. General (also called all-purpose) jurisdiction means that a defendant's contacts with a state are sufficiently extensive that the “defendant is ‘essentially at home,’ ” and the court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant regardless of whether the claims relate to the forum state.  (Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 919.)

Specific personal jurisdiction hinges on the “ ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ ” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S.117, 133; accord Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 284.)  Such jurisdiction requires “ ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.’ ” (Bristol-Myers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p. 1780.) Consistent with the constraints of due process, “the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.” (Walden v. Fiore, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 1115.)

ANALYSIS

Specially appearing Defendant Sulock moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on the basis that California lacks personal jurisdiction over Sulock. 

The unverified complaint alleges that the unspecified conduct constituting the unspecified intentional tort occurred in West Hollywood on July 31, 2023. (See Complaint,  pp. 1-3.)  Notwithstanding, Sulock has advanced an affidavit in which she states in pertinent part:

·         I work at Marshall Dennehey's headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

·         I live and work in Pennsylvania.

·         Pennsylvania is my state-of-domicile, as that is where live permanently, and where I vote, pay taxes, have a vehicle registered, etc.

·         I do not live—either on a temporary or permanent basis— in California.

·         I own no real or personal property, am not registered to vote, and pay no taxes in California.

·         I do not work—either on a temporary or permanent basis—in California.

·         I was counsel for a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, captioned as Nation v. Impact Services Inc., et ai., Case No. 211102123. The plaintiff in that case is the same Plaintiff in this case.

·         My client in that case was dismissed via preliminary objections, which, for the benefit of this Court, is Pennsylvania's equivalent of a motion to quash.

·         All of my conduct in Nation v. Impact Services was in the role of counsel to a party, and everything I did with respect to that case was in Pennsylvania.

·         The court also (as stated) is located in Pennsylvania.

·         Following the dismissal of my client in Nation v. Impact Services, I was then sued personally in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned as Nation v. Sulock, Case No. 221000966. The plaintiff in that case was the Plaintiff in this case.

·         This second case was dismissed by the trial court sua sponte on the basis that it was frivolous. This can be seen by the dismissal order's citation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1).

·         This case, too, was filed in a court located in Pennsylvania.

·         I had no contact whatsoever with California in connection with either Nation v. Impact Services, No. 211102123, or Nation v. Sulock, Case No. 221000966.

(Affidavit of Alesia Sulock, ¶¶ 3-16.) 

Plaintiff has not opposed Sulock’s motion to quash, and therefore, Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence challenging Sulock’s assertion that she lacks minimum contacts with California.  Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish that California has general or specific personal jurisdiction over Sulock.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            For the reasons stated, the Court grants Specially Appearing Sulock’s Motion to Quash. 

            Further, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions for failure to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, on November 29, 2023 at 8:30 A.M.   Plaintiff shall appear in person at the Order to Show Cause hearing. 

            The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.     

DATED:  September 27, 2023                       ___________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court