Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV05033, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05033    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Specially appearing Defendants Michael C. Thompson (“Thompson”) and Gregory R. Holmes (“Holmes”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to quash service of the summons and complaint on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff Todd Michael Schultz, appearing in pro per (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion and Defendants reply.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash is styled as a declaration and sworn under penalty of perjury.  Defendants have therefore submitted evidentiary objections to various portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition.  To the extent Plaintiff intends the Opposition to serve as evidence, the Court rules as follows with regard to Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff’s Opposition:

1.      Sustained

2.      Sustained

3.      Sustained

4.      Sustained

5.      Sustained

6.      Sustained

7.      Sustained

8.      Sustained

9.      Overruled

10.  Sustained

11.  Sustained

The Court will still consider the arguments made in Plaintiff’s Opposition in full as arguments only.

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.)   

Moreover, “on a challenge to personal jurisdiction by a motion to quash, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.”  (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 209–210 (hereafter ViaView).)  “The plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and other competent evidence to carry this burden and cannot simply rely on allegations in an unverified complaint.”  (Id. at p. 210.)  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) 582 U.S. 255 (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, 582 U.S. at p. 262.) 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, 571 U.S. at p. 284.)

Further, “a nonresident defendant may be subject to the court's specific jurisdiction if three requirements are met: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits with respect to the matter in controversy; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable and comports with fair play and substantial justice.”  (ViaView, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 216.)

ANALYSIS

Defendants contend that California lacks personal jurisdiction over them.  In support of their contention, Defendants advance their own declarations stating that they are residents of Kentucky, and have never visited California, owned or rented any real property in California, filed legal proceedings in California, held a California bank account, owned or operated a business in California.  (See generally Declarations of Michael C. Thompson and Gregory R. Holmes.)  Thus, Defendants lack the extensive contacts to be “essentially at home” in California to establish general jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has submitted an Opposition brief, signed under penalty of perjury, as well as a Declaration, also signed under penalty of perjury.  The Opposition brief indicates, in relevant portion, that Defendants created a YouTube Channel called “Hollywood Laughingstock Channel” or (“HLC”) to target Plaintiff, whom Defendants know lives in Hollywood, California.  Further, the unverified complaint alleges that Defendants, both of whom reside in Kentucky (Compl. ¶ 1), harassed Plaintiff, who “they knew to be in California” (Compl. ¶ 3) through the livechat feature on YouTube, (Compl. ¶ 14).  Plaintiff also alleges Defendants republished Plaintiff’s livestream content to defame Plaintiff (Compl. ¶ 15) and threatened Plaintiff (Compl. ¶ 37.)

However, “posting defamatory statements about a person [online], while knowing that person resides in the forum state, is insufficient in itself to create the minimum contacts necessary to support specific personal jurisdiction in a lawsuit arising out of that posting. Instead, it is necessary that the nonresident defendant not only intentionally post the statements [online], but that the defendant expressly aim or specifically direct his or her intentional conduct at the forum, rather than at a plaintiff who lives there.”  (Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 13.)  But evidence that social media messages were aimed at a California audience can suffice to establish personal jurisdiction.  (Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 543, 557.)

But Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence that Defendants’ online content was specifically aimed at a California audience.  Moreover, the allegations of the Complaint belie any such inference: “For the first 6 weeks, I was naive to the events being coordinated and executed against me. I was being harassed, provoked, and manipulated by professional cyberstalkers.”  (Compl. ¶ 14.)  In short, the Court finds that there is no evidence suggesting that Defendants’ conduct was aimed at a California audience

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish minimum contacts exist between Defendants and the forum state of California to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction on Defendants.  Accordingly, the Court grants Specially Appearing Defendants’ Motion to Quash quashing the service of the summons and complaint, and orders the action dismissed as to Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.    

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

DATED:  December 14, 2023                        ___________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court