Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2020-00012515-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 15, 2023

11/17/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2020-00012515-CU-WT-CTL DIEP VS RPT CONSULTING LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT GARY MATNEY'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND DEFECTIVE SERVICE is GRANTED.

After Specially Appearing Defendant Gary Matney ('Matney') filed this motion, the burden shifted to Plaintiff Shanna L. Diep ('Plaintiff') to prove this Court has jurisdiction by making a prima facie showing of sufficient contacts with the State of California. (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.) Matney asserts this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Matney because he has not had minimum contacts with California.

'Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific.' (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 108.) California may have specific jurisdiction 'if there is a sufficient nexus among the defendant, the state and the litigation.' (Id. at 109.) A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) 'the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits' (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446); (2) 'the 'controversy is related to or 'arises out of ' [the] defendant's contacts with the forum' ' (ibid., quoting Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414 [104 S.Ct. at p. 1872]); and (3) ' 'the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice' ' ' (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 447, quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472-473 [105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528] (Burger King)).

The purposeful availment inquiry ... focuses on the defendant's intentionality. [Citation.] This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court's jurisdiction based on' his contacts with the forum. (U.S. v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd. (1st Cir. 2001) 274 F.3d 610, 623-624 (Swiss American Bank).) (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269.) 'The United States Supreme Court has explained, for example, that a state properly may exercise specific jurisdiction when it ' 'asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State' and those products subsequently injure forum consumers. [Citation.]' (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 447 [Citation omitted].) Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence that this Court has general jurisdiction over Matney. As to specific jurisdiction, Plaintiff asserts that Matney purposefully availed himself of California as a forum because he is the Chief Financial Officer for RPT, a company for which Plaintiff conducted business within California. Plaintiff asserts Matney ultimately benefitted from RPT's conduct in California given that he is a corporate officer. The Court is unconvinced. It is insufficient that he had contacts with Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978654 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DIEP VS RPT CONSULTING LLC [IMAGED]  37-2020-00012515-CU-WT-CTL California by virtue of the fact he was an officer of RPT who performed his official duties. (See In re Boon Global Limited (9th Cir. 2019) 923 F.3d 643, 651.) Matney may indirectly benefit from RPT's conduct in California, but Plaintiff does not cite to any authority that finds such an attenuated connection is sufficient.

Ignoring the corporate veil, Plaintiff asserts RPT's conduct in California is equivalent to Matney having contact with California such that the complaint arises out of Matney's purported contact with California, which solely arises as a result of Matney being the CFO of RPT. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate Plaintiff's complaint arises out of Matney's purported contacts with California (merely being the CFO or RPT). At best, Plaintiff provides evidence that Matney failed to do something that could have had an effect in California – reimbursing Plaintiff for business expenses via RPT.

Finally, the Court disagrees that exercising jurisdiction over Matney would comport with notions of fair play and substantial justice. Plaintiff fails to show that Matney benefitted from Plaintiff working in California. Plaintiff merely shows that the company, RPT, Matney worked for benefitted. There is nothing that connects Matney to California except Matney's work for RPT, which addressed above is insufficient.

The motion is granted. No sanctions are awarded.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978654