Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV02035, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02035    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff 5300 Marina Island, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendants SepctraSite Communications, LLC (“SpectraSite”); American Tower Corporation (“ATC”); Mas Tec Network Solutions, LLC (“Mas Tec”); T-Mobile US Inc. (“T-Mobile”); and Sprint Corporation (“Sprint”) (together, “Defendants”); alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) negligence, arising from a dispute concerning antenna installation on an easement.  Only the first cause of action is alleged against ATC.

Specially appearing ATC now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and ATC replies.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff requests judicial notice of “the Massachusetts Secretary of State website for American Tower.”    Judicial notice may be taken of any of the following:

(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) Records 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.

(e) Rules of court 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.

(f) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations.

(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction 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 capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.

(Evid. Code, § 452.) 

            Plaintiff does not identify which subdivision permits the Court to take judicial notice of the requested document.

            Moreover, the document attached to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice appears to be a printout of Business Entity Search Results from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website.  However, Plaintiff has not provided the website address where this information is available, how or when the search results were obtained or what search terms were used, nor has Plaintiff authenticated the document.

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied.   

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            The Court rules as follows with respect to ATC’s evidentiary objections:

1.     Overruled

2.     Overruled

3.     Overruled

4.     Overruled

5.     Overruled

6.     Overruled

7.     Overruled

8.     Overruled

9.     Overruled

10.  Overruled

11.  Overruled

12.  Overruled

13.  Overruled

14.  Sustained

15.  Overruled

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

ATC contends that California lacks personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the instant dispute because (1) it is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts; (2) it was served in Wilmington, Delaware; (3) specific jurisdiction is improper because it is not a party to the underlying agreement and was not involved in the underlying incident; and (4) it has no California presence and is not registered to do business in California.

In support of its contention, ATC advances the Declaration of Paul Bergendahl, which provides:  

4. American Tower is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing from the Delaware Secretary of State is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.

5. American Tower is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

6. American Tower does not have any offices in the State of California.

7. American Tower does not conduct any business in the State of California.

8. Another subsidiary of American Tower, ATC TRS V LLC, owns and has registered the service mark "American Tower Corporation" registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("US PTO"). A true and correct copy of a web printout from the US PTO showing registration of that service mark is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.

9. American Tower does not control the operations of defendant, SpectraSite Communications, LLC ("SpectraSite").

10. American Tower has no affiliation with American Tower Corporation, the non-profit corporation for mutual benefit incorporated by Elaine Selan or someone using her name.

(Bergendahl Decl. ¶¶ 4-10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff submits the following evidence that ATC was directly involved in the underlying transaction and incident at issue:

·       The Telecommunication Easement Agreement was prepared by an attorney working for American Tower. (Exhibit A which directly involved repair to the roof at issue in this case)

·       The Notice to Proceed involves the manner to repair to the roof at issue in this case. The contact person in the Notice to Proceed letter is gilbert.guitron@americantower.corporation. (Exhibit B)

·       The Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attomment agreement was generated by American Tower Corporation involving the property at issue. (Exhibit C)

·       Neil Freeman, Senior Account Manager for American Tower Corporation, emailed Plaintiff to discuss how American Tower was to repair the roof. (Exhibit D)

·       Plaintiff responded to Neil Freeman at American Tower Corporation, "Yes. Please proceed now." (Exhibit E)

·       On February 1, 2024 Neil Freeman sent an email that said, "If there is anything you need 2 to discuss with American Tower prior to approving the work, please let me know, and I am happy to help." (Exhibit F)

·       American Tower sent a document called "Easement Acquisition Agreement" in which it identified the party acquiring the easement as "SpectraSite Communications, LLC c/o American Tower Corporation." (Exhibit G)

·       In the American Tower Notice to Proceed Letter, it states, "American Tower is pleased to inform you that all requirements of the notice to proceed have been met." (Exhibit H)

·       On February 1, 2024, Neil Freeman emailed Plaintiff and advised that the manner in which to handle the repairs. (Exhibit L)

·       On March 8, 2023 Brian Bodjiak of American Tower contacted Plaintiff about taking the issue to the American Tower's carrier to investigate the damages caused by the faulty installation of the antenna equipment. (Exhibit M)

·       On March 12, 2024, Joseph Poirier of American Tower Corporation sent an email to Plaintiff where he says, "I do apologize for the ongoing leaks. We are working with Sprint to remedy any leaks caused by their equipment. They are active on site and will be addressing these issues in the near future." (Exhibit J)

·       On March 26, 2024, Sylvester Martinez, on behalf of the repair contractor, Mastec, sent an email to all parties regarding repairs to the roof. This email was sent to Neil Freeman at American Tower, and Gilbert Guitron at American Tower that states, "[I] can have someone from ATC reach out and discuss a solution that works for everyone." (Exhibit J)

·       On March 26, 2024, Amanda Fairweather, on behalf of American Tower Company, sent an email regarding the "alleged roof damage to your client's property." Ms. Fairweather continues, "I have been informed by American Tower's project management team that Mr. Isrealy has been provided with all information related to Sprint's plans to repair damage on the roof . . . .” (Exhibit K)

(Exs. A-M to Altschuld Decl.)

            Thus, Plaintiff has met its burden to demonstrate that ATC was directly involved in the underlying incident, involving the installation of a satellite on real property in California, to establish ATC has the requisite minimum contacts and purposefully availed itself of the laws of California, such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it in this matter is reasonable.

            In Reply, ATC argues that none of these exhibits were properly authenticated, and use of the “American Tower Corporation” service mark alone is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.

            The original Altschuld Declaration provides:

I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I can and will testify competently thereto under oath

I have attached true and correct copies of text from the American Tower website wherein it states

"What We Do

Through communications sites and other real estate solutions in 24 countries around the world, American Tower enables our partners and customers to connect with more people, which builds community and creates opportunities."

"Who Do We Serve? Our customers include mobile network operators and multinational telecommunications companies, media and broadband providers, government agencies and other industries who reach people through wireless communication technologies."

and further:

"With a leading portfolio of independently owned U.S. and international tower real estate, as well as a network of data centers in the U.S., American Tower offers our wide array of customers more comprehensive and interconnected communications and real estate platforms to provide faster, more reliable service." (Collectively Exhibit A to declaration of Bruce Altschuld)

Due to the website color coding I could not print up the wording but these are the exact statements on the website

(Altschuld Decl., Dec. 5, 2024.)   Four days later, Plaintiff submitted a supplemental declaration of Bruce Altschuld, which adds:

“I also add to this declaration that, as to Exhibits A through M, attached to the opposition to the motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint on American Tower Corporation those are true and correct copies of that evidence that was provided to my client during the course of the repairs to the roof at issue.”

(Supp. Alschuld Decl., Dec. 9, 2024.)

            Thus, although the exhibits were not originally authenticated, Alschuld, as Plaintiff’s agent, authenticated them in the Supplemental Alschuld Declaration.

            Plaintiff also argues in opposition, that because ATC concedes it is not registered to do business in California, the Court should enter default against ATC.  That issue is not properly before the Court at this juncture.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of proof that ATC was directly involved in the underlying incident to establish the requisite minimum contacts between Plaintiff, Defendants, and the forum state of California to justify imposition of specific personal jurisdiction on ATC. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Specially Appearing Defendants’ Motion to Quash quashing the service of the summons and complaint. 

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.     

DATED:  December 18, 2024                                                ___________________________

                                                                                                Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                                Judge of the Superior Court