Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01917, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 24PSCV01917    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Medpro Health Care Services, Inc.’s Motion to Quash

Respondent: Unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Medpro Health Care Services, Inc.’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

Service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Medpro Health Care Services, Inc. is quashed.

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff Mcare Pro Health Services, Inc., a Texas Corporation, filed a complaint against Medpro Healthcare Services, an Indian Corporation, and Does 1-20, alleging causes of action for (1) intentional interference with contractual relation, (2) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and (3) harassment under Cal. Civ. Code § 527.6, et seq.  On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which identified the moving defendant, Medpro Health Care Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, as Doe 1.  On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons indicating that Balaji Umamaheswaran of the Maryland Corporation was personally served with the summons and complaint on July 8, 2024.

Moving Defendant is Medpro Health Care Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, which is not a subsidiary of any other corporation, nor does it have any subsidiaries.  (Umamaheswaran Decl., ¶ 2.)  Defendant states that the Maryland Corporation has nothing to do with this case, or the actions taken by either Plaintiffs or The Indian Corporation, in India. (Umamaheswaran Decl., ¶ 8.)

On May 9, 2025, Specially Appearing Defendant Medpro Healthcare Services filed the instant motion to quash.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to quash Plaintiff’s service on Defendant.  Defendant argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over the foreign defendants, or in the alternative that the proper place to proceed with this action is in India against the Indian Corporation or in Maryland against the Maryland Corporation, or in the alternative that the Complaint was not properly served in accordance with California law, rendering service defective and invalid (California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 413.10 et seq., 415.20, 416.10, and 474).  Defendant also argues this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Maryland entity due to improper service and the absence of minimum contacts with California (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10).

“‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’” (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 202.) “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.” (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.) A defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)

“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 move “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)(1).) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20(a)(3).)

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) Filing of a proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service. (Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

Personal Jurisdiction

California courts exercise in personam jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the state and federal constitutions. (CCP § 410.10; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Pavlovich ).) It is axiomatic that: “Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.” (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 790.) The central question is whether the person sought to be brought before our courts has “minimum contacts” with this state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 U .S. 457, 463; see Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 268.)

“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445 (Vons).) General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities there are substantial, continuous, and systematic.” (F. Hoffman–La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 796.) Where the contacts are sufficiently substantial, continuous, and systematic, it is not necessary that the cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relationship to the forum. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 445.) However, “contacts that are random, fortuitous, or attenuated do not rise to the minimum level, and general jurisdiction cannot be exercised under these circumstances.” (F. Hoffman–La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at 795.)

Specific Jurisdiction

If a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are not substantial, continuous, and systematic, the defendant may be subject to specific jurisdiction. “When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the ‘“relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” [Citations.] A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) ‘the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits’ [citation]; (2) ‘the “controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum”’ [citations]; and (3) ‘“the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice’ [citations].” (Pavlovich, supra, at p. 269.)

“When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis that would justify the exercise of jurisdiction.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 794.) The plaintiff must present facts demonstrating that the conduct of defendants related to the pleaded causes is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable minimum contacts. (Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, 266; see also In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [“The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts. It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.... Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.” (Citation omitted.) ].) If the plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.)

Here, the moving Defendant is a Maryland Corporation. Plaintiff failed to establish moving defendant’s contact with the state of California.  In the complaint filed on June 13, 2024, in regard to Defendant, Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Medpro is, and at all times material hereto was, an Indian Corporation doing business in India, and providing services to services to companies in the United States, including California.” (Compl., ¶ 2.) This appears to apply to the Indian company defendant, not the Maryland Defendant. 

Further, in Umamaheswaran’s declaration, he states that the Maryland Defendant is not licensed to do business in California, does not pay any state payroll tax in California, does not maintain and has never maintained any office, facility, warehouse, or other fixed physical presence in California, does not have any employees, agents, or representatives in California, does not have any bank accounts or any land or personal property in California, does not engage in any advertising targeted towards California residents, does not have a mailing address, telephone number, or fax listing in California and does not ship any products to California.  (Umamaheswaran Decl., ¶¶ 12-20.)

Since the moving Defendant is a nonresident defendant challenging jurisdiction, the burden shifts to Plaintiff who must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.  Plaintiff failed to do so. 

Therefore, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1), the motion to quash the service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over moving Defendant is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash by Defendant Medpro Health Care Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, is GRANTED.  Service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Medpro Health Care Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, is hereby quashed.