Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 23STCV00220 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV00220, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed her Complaint against Defendant Brock Pierce on causes of action for defamation, defamation per se, and injunctive relief.

On March 10, 2023, Specially Appearing Defendant Brock Pierce (“Defendant”) filed his Motion to Quash Service of Summons. In support of his Motion, he concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”); (2) Declaration; (3) Proposed Order; and (4) POS-030, Proof of Service by First-Class Mail.

On April 28, 2023, Defendant filed his Reply. Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Evidentiary Objections; (2) Proposed Order re: Evidentiary Objections; and (3) Proof of Service.

Defendant filed evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s declarations and Opposition. The following are the Court’s rulings on these evidentiary objections.

Objection
1	SUSTAINED
2	SUSTAINED
3		OVERRULED
4		OVERRULED

(These evidentiary objections are listed in the order they appear, not in the order Defendant listed, because Defendant’s list incorrectly repeats certain numbers for different objections.)

Objection
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		OVERRULED
15		OVERRULED
16		OVERRULED
17		OVERRULED
18		OVERRULED

(The Court also notes that it is improper to object to a statement in an MPA. Statements in a Memorandum are not evidence; they are simply the arguments of counsel. “An assertion is not evidence.” (Paleski v. State Dept. of Health Services (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 713, 732.)

“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).)

“A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)

“California's long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. A state court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (Vons Cos., Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444–45, quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, internal quotation and other citations omitted.)

“As the high court has explained, each individual has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum ‘contacts, ties or relations.’” (Id. at 445, quoting Int’l Shoe, supra, at 329.)

“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. (Id. at 445–46 [cleaned up], emphasis in original.)

“If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant's contacts with the forum.” (Id. at 446 [cleaned up], emphasis in original.)

“When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Id. at 449, citations omitted.)

Defendant moves the Court to quash service of the summons. (Memorandum, p. 9:7–8.) Defendant argues: (1) that Plaintiff cannot establish general personal jurisdiction over Defendant; and (2) that Plaintiff cannot establish specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Id. at pp. 5:1, 6:3.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Defendant has substantial, continuous, and systematic contact with the State of California; and (2) that Defendant purposefully availed himself of California when he elected to call a resident of the State of California and head of a California non-profit organization. (Opposition, pp. 6:4–5, 8:1–3.)

In his Reply, Defendant argues: (1) that Plaintiff offers no admissible evidence that Defendant has the requisite substantial, continuous, or systematic contacts with California to establish general personal jurisdiction; and (2) that Plaintiff has no admissible evidence of the three elements of specific jurisdiction. (Reply, pp. 2:23–24, 6:11.)

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant discuss whether minimum contacts for general personal jurisdiction should be considered at the time the cause of action accrued or whether they should be considered at the time the complaint was filed.

The Court concludes that minimum contacts must be considered at the time the cause of action accrued. (See, e.g., Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717 [the relevant period for general personal jurisdiction to be when the cause of action accrued]; also see Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Fiscus (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1240–41 [the relevant period for general personal jurisdiction is based on the earlier judgment when a renewed case was filed based on that judgment; see also Taylor-Rush v. Multitech Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 103, 114 [“In the instant case appellant has made a compelling showing that, while in California, [appellee] made fraudulent misrepresentations and nondisclosures . . . . There is no question that the minimum contracts test was met and personal jurisdiction over him was acquired by virtue of his tortious acts within California purposely directed at appellant.”])

Plaintiff has presented admissible evidence that indicates: (1) that Defendant ran for President of the United States of America in 2020; (2) Defendant co-created an entity called the Independent National Convention (INC); (3) that in 2022 and for several years beforehand, INC was partnered with another organization, Free and Equal Elections Foundation (FEEF), which is a nonprofit foundation formed and based in California; (4) that during this period, Defendant co-hosted FEEF’s Free and Equal Election Festival in Cambria, California; (5) that on September 21, 2022, Defendant disassociated INC from FEEF; and (6) that as part of this disassociation, Defendant made statements to the head of FEEF about Plaintiff, including that Plaintiff is “litigious”, “I should know that he heard a rumor that [Plaintiff] was the organizer of a large sex-trafficking ring for children”, and “[Plaintiff] may be the evilest person I’ve ever seen/encountered. . . .” (See Opposition, Decl. Tobin, ¶¶ 3, 5–9, 11.)

Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient for the purposes of this Motion to establish that, at the time of September 21, 2022, Defendant had sufficiently substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the State of California. The evidence indicates that Defendant co-hosted at least one event in California, partnered with a California non-profit over the course of years, and even obtained the votes of 185 Californians in the 2020 election. There was no indication prior to September 21, 2022 that he intended to end those minimum contacts, and it is not clear to what extent he actually has ended those minimum contacts.

Plaintiff meets her initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of general personal jurisdiction.

The Court then considers Defendant’s evidence. Defendant declares: (1) that his domicile is in Puerto Rico, as he has lived there since 2017 and intends to continue living there for the indefinite future; (2) that he has no residence in California; (3) that he conducts no business in California; (4) that he does not have continuous or systematic connections with California; (5) that he does not own assets in California; (6) that he does not maintain a bank account in California; (7) that he does not engage in business in California; (8) that he is not employed in California; (9) that he was served with the Complaint while he was in Miami, Florida; (10) that his limited liability company was formed in and exists under the laws of Puerto Rico; (11) that his limited liability company has its principal place of business in Puerto Rico; (12) that his limited liability company is not qualified to do business in California; (13) that his limited liability company does no business in California; and (14) that he does not know where Christina Tobin was when he spoke to her in September or October 2022. (Decl. Pierce, ¶¶ 2–4.) Defendant’s Declaration is dated March 10, 2023.

This evidence is insufficient to show that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Nearly all Defendant’s evidence is irrelevant to the question of whether Defendant had minimum contacts during the relevant period of September 21, 2022, which is when the cause of action allegedly accrued. It is irrelevant whether he no longer had those minimum contacts on March 10, 2023. Moreover, Defendant’s evidence does not refute Plaintiff’s evidence, which pointed to Defendant’s contacts with California during the 2020 election and up until September 21, 2021.

The Court finds that general personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant regarding the cause of action in the Complaint.