Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00672, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00672    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Lyndsey Ardoin’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Lyndsey Ardoin’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an employment discrimination action. In October 1979, Plaintiff Raudel Salinas was hired as a janitor for Defendant Goulds Pumps (IPG) LLC (Goulds Pumps). In November 1988, Salinas became a certified welder and continued to work for Goulds Pumps. After being diagnosed with cancer in January 2019, Salinas began to take time off to receive cancer treatment starting in March 2019. In May 2020, Salinas went on medical leave until November 2020 upon the advice of Salinas’s doctor. In November 2020, Salinas’s wife, Ana Orozco, informed Goulds Pumps that Salinas would return to work in March 2021. On March 18, 2021, Orozco contacted Goulds Pumps and informed them that Salinas would return to work on March 22 with light duty restrictions. On March 19, Goulds Pumps’s human resources manager, Defendant Lyndsey Ardoin, allegedly informed Orozco that Salinas had been terminated because “people who are long-term disability get terminated.” On March 22, Salinas alleges Goulds Pumps terminated Salinas’s employment.

On March 7, 2023, Salinas filed a complaint against Goulds Pumps, Ardoin, Kevin Harris, and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to accommodate, (2) failure to engage in an interactive process, (3) retaliation for whistleblowing, (4) disability discrimination, (5) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (6) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), (7) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) age discrimination, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On January 22, 2024, Ardoin filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for March 21, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Ardoin moves to quash the service of summons on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Ardoin’s motion.

Legal Standard

“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 . . . [t]o 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).) “When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the¿evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met.” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1054-1055, quoting Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233 (Ziller).) A plaintiff meets this burden by providing “competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.” (Id., at p. 1055, quoting Ziller, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 1232-1233.)

Discussion

In this case, Ardoin argues both forms of personal jurisdiction are lacking because Ardoin is a resident of Texas. In opposition, Salinas fails to provide any evidence to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Ardoin. Further, Salinas failed to oppose the motion to quash. Because Salinas bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, and allegations in unverified pleadings are insufficient to do so, Ardoin’s motion is GRANTED. (See Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 271.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Ardoin’s motion to quash summons is GRANTED.