Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV35596, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.
IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
Case Number: 21STCV35596 Hearing Date: September 22, 2022 Dept: 74
21STCV35596 ERNEST
JOSEPH FRANCESCHI, JR. vs CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN
Specially Appearing Defendant Gloria Baldwin’s Motion and
Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Directed to First Amended
Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING:
Specially Appearing Defendant Gloria Baldwin’s Motion and Motion to
Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Directed to First Amended Complaint is
GRANTED.
Background
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Ernest Franceschi,
Jr. filed this action against Defendants Christopher Baldwin and Gloria
Baldwin. The
operative First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), added Defendant Ross Perkal and asserts
causes of action for: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (2) tortious interference with contract; and (3) extortion. The FAC
alleges Plaintiff, an attorney, represented Defendant Christopher Baldwin in
two lawsuits pursuant to retainer agreements whereby the upfront costs were
paid by Ralph Baldwin, Christopher Baldwin’s father. Plaintiff alleges Baldwin,
at the encouragement of his mother Defendant Gloria Baldwin, refused to attend
mediation or settle the lawsuits and Plaintiff withdrew as counsel. Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Christopher Baldwin thereafter sent an email stating
Plaintiff failed to provide receipts for money collected and demanded return of
funds under threat of reporting Plaintiff to the IRS and the State Bar.
On December 30, 2021, the Court granted, in part,
Plaintiff’s ex parte application granting Plaintiff leave to take the
deposition of Gloria Baldwin on the limited issue of jurisdiction for purposes
of opposing the motion to quash based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction.
On May 26, 2022, the Court issued an order sustaining
Defendant’s demurer to the first and second causes of action without leave to
amend and overruling the demurrer as to the third cause of action in the FAC.
On July 20, 2022, the Court issued an order granting
Gloria Baldwin’s motion for protective order and continuing the hearing on the
instant motion to September 22, 2022 to allow the parties to complete Gloria
Baldwin’s deposition.
Motion
On April 26, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendant
Gloria Baldwin filed the instant motion to quash for lack of personal
jurisdiction arguing Plaintiff failed to properly serve her and there is an
insufficient basis to exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over
her.
In the reply filed on September 15, 2022, Gloria
Baldwin indicates she no longer challenges service. (Supp. Reply at 2 n.2
(“Mrs. Baldwin no longer contests service in this matter.”).)
Opposition
On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition indicating
Gloria Baldwin had not been deposed and therefore the motion should be denied.
On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed his
supplemental opposition after Gloria Baldwin’s deposition.
Reply
On July 13, 2022, Gloria Baldwin filed her first
reply arguing the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and Plaintiff
failed to meet his burden.
On September 15, 2022, Gloria Baldwin filed her
supplemental reply.
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections
On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to
two portions of Gloria Baldwin’s deposition testimony.
Objection No. 1 is SUSTAINED as to the following “But
I think that lady was telling him that she had to put your mother down, because
we're going to check her credit. And that’s what he did. Q Okay. So he told her—this
lady whose name is unknown, told him that he told you that he’s going to put
you down as a co-tenant living in the apartment in order to check your credit;
is that . . . A Yes, that’s what she told him.” (G. Baldwin Depo. at 44:3-15.)
Objection No. 2 is SUSTAINED.
Discussion
Standard
“A defendant . . . 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(a).)¿
California courts are authorized to “exercise
[personal] jurisdiction over parties on any basis not inconsistent with the
Constitution of [California] or the United States.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.)
“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.” Vons
Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.)
“When a nonresident
defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate the defendant has
sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to justify jurisdiction.” (Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113
Cal.App.4th 258, 266.)
Plaintiff Failed to
Demonstrate the Court has General Jurisdiction Over Gloria Baldwin
“When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts
consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A
court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if:
(1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum
benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s
contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would
comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (internal
citations and quotations omitted).)
“A plaintiff opposing a
defendant's motion to quash service has the burden of establishing factors No.
(1) (the defendant's purposeful availment) and No. (2) (lawsuit relates to the
defendant's contacts with state). If the plaintiff does so, the burden then
shifts to the defendant to show factor No. (3), that the exercise of
jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (People ex rel. Harris v. Native
Wholesale Supply Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 357, 362.)
In the
supplemental opposition, Plaintiff contends “Gloria Baldwin has engaged in ‘substantial,
continuous, and systematic’ contacts with California so as to subject her to
general jurisdiction.” (Supp. Opp. at 2:22-23. See also Supp. Opp. at 7:22-24
(“A party opposing a motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction need only show that
the defendant has engaged in ‘substantial, continuous, and systematic’ contacts
with California so as to subject her to general jurisdiction.”).) Plaintiff
does not address specific jurisdiction, though several of the cited authorities
solely involved the exercise of specific jurisdiction. (See e.g. Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Simons v. Steverson
(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 693, 711.)
The only
evidence provided by Plaintiff in support of the opposition relates to Gloria
Baldwin’s involvement in Christopher Baldwin’s lease of a residential unit in
Marina Del Rey, California and Gloria Baldwin’s guaranty of the lease.
(Franceschi Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Ex. 3-15.) This case does not involve the lease
agreement, Christopher Baldwin’s tenancy, or Gloria Baldwin’s contractual
obligations. Rather, Plaintiff alleges Gloria Baldwin “encouraged, directed,
and took other actions to rendered aid and assistance to Christopher Baldwin” in
connection with his sending an alleged extortionate email and failing to settle
litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate this case “is related to or arises out of
the defendant’s contacts with the forum” as required. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 (internal
citations and quotations omitted).) Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to meet his
burden to establish specific jurisdiction. (Native Wholesale Supply, supra, 196
Cal.App.4th at 362.)
Plaintiff Failed to Demonstrate the
Court has General Jurisdiction Over Gloria Baldwin
“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.’” (Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th
at 445 (quoting Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342
U.S. 437, 445, 446.) In such instances, “it is not necessary that the specific
cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relationship
to the forum.” (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16
Cal.3d 143, 147.)
Gloria Baldwin is a resident of New Mexico, has
lived in New Mexico her entire life, is registered to vote in New Mexico, “do[es]
not own or lease property in California, do[es] not maintain or possess any
bank accounts in California, and do[es] not have a post office box or mailing
address in California, . . . do[es]
not conduct business in California and do[es] not have any employees or
representatives in California” and has only made “very brief” trips to
California within the last five years.” (G.
Baldwin Decl. ¶¶ 2-20.) Gloria Baldwin “signed a guarantor application
as part of [her] son’s initial leasing agreement to occupy the apartment [in
Marina Del Rey, California]. [She] was not listed as an occupant on the lease
agreement, never resided at the apartment with [her] son, and did not pay for his
rent.” (Id. ¶ 18.)
As
noted above, Plaintiff contends the Court may exercise general jurisdiction
over Gloria Baldwin based upon her involvement in Christopher Baldwin’s lease.
(Supp. Opp. at 3:1-7:25.) Plaintiff cites testimony that Gloria Baldwin gave
Christopher Baldwin blanket authority to execute all lease related documents on
her behalf, provides an “Onsite Transfer Application,” in which it was
represented that Gloria Baldwin would live in the apartment, and a series of lease agreements whereby
Gloria Baldwin would serve as a guarantor. (Franceschi Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Ex. 3-15.)
In her declaration, Gloria Baldwin stated she never lived in
California and explained at her deposition that the representation that she
would live in the apartment on the On Site Transfer Application was not
authorized and she was not a co-tenant. (Leigh Reply Decl. Ex. A, G. Baldwin
Depo. at 43:20-45:3, 47:12-13.) As noted by Defendant in reply, serving as a
guarantor does not subject a non-state resident to general jurisdiction as a
matter of law. (See Pennsylvania Health & Life Ins. Guaranty Assn. v.
Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 477, 487 (“our Supreme Court has long
recognized a guaranty relationship by itself is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.”)
citing Sibley v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 442, 444; Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 572 (“a parent company's guarantee
alone does not provide a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction.”).) The
regularity of the lease agreement and guaranty do not support general
jurisdiction. (See e.g. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984)
466 U.S. 408, 418 (“mere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are
not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a
nonresident . . . in a cause of action not related to those purchase
transactions.”).)
“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general
jurisdiction is the individual's domicile.” (Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924. See also Halyard
Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1070 (“A
nonresident defendant is subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if
the defendant is essentially at home in the forum State.”).) “The standard for
establishing general jurisdiction is fairly high, and requires that the
defendant's contacts be of the sort that approximate physical presence.” (Elkman
v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1315 (citations
omitted).) Plaintiff’s evidence does not establish Gloria Baldwin is
essentially at home in California, such that the Court can exercise general
jurisdiction over her.
The motion is GRANTED.