TENTATIVE 

Defendant L&V Food Supply, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is GRANTED.

Legal 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 may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitutions of California and the United States.  (Civ. Proc. Code, § 410.10.)  “When a defendant moves the trial court to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that sufficient contacts exist between the defendant and California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.”  (Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436.)  “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.”  (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.)   

There are two main ways for a court to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Due Process Clause, specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction.  (Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 861.)  “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.)  General jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists if the defendant’s contacts in the forum state are “substantial … continuous and systematic.”  (Id. at 445-46, citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445, 446.)  If the contacts are not pervasive, the court may only exercise jurisdiction based upon contacts that relate directly to the transaction or activity out of which the suit arises.  (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976)16 Cal. 3d 143, 147-148.)  This is called “specific jurisdiction.”  (Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 411, fn. 8.)  A nonresident may be subject to specific jurisdiction if: (1) the nonresident has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; (2) the controversy arises out of the nonresident’s contacts with the state; and (3) it would be fair and just to assert jurisdiction.  (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 269.) 

Discussion 

As an initial matter, the Court exercises its discretion in considering the late-filed opposition as Defendant has not shown it was prejudiced by it.

Here, L&V Food Supply, Inc. asserts that it is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the subject accident, does not conduct business in California, and that none of its employees were involved in an accident in California.  L&V Food Supply, Inc. contends that it has been mistakenly brought into this action based on the similarity of its name to L&V Food Supply, which is a fictitious name used by C&T Produce Wholesale, Inc. and has no relationship to L&V Food Supply, Inc.  L&V Food Supply, Inc. provides that it has its principal place of business in Texas, and thus, asserts it has insufficient minimum contacts with California. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the court clearly does have personal jurisdiction over this defendant and the complaint alleges adequate facts to support the conclusion that jurisdiction is properly conferred. However, Plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant has sufficient contacts within the forum jurisdiction. (Ziller Electric Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (Grosh Scenic Studios) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232; Thomas J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye IS Bankasi S.A. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 135, 146; Regents of the University of New Mexico v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 964, 970, fn. 7.) “This burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence. An unverified complaint may not be considered as an affidavit supplying necessary facts.” (Ziller Electric Lab GmbH at 1232-33.)

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the commission of a single tort has long been upheld as an adequate basis to confer personal jurisdiction. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to proffer adequate evidence that Mr. Jose Rodriguez was not driving the vehicle/truck at the time of the accident. The sole evidence supporting L&V's contention is the bald statement at paragraph 8 of the Linh declaration which says that "furthermore, Mr. Jose Rodriguez is not an employee of the L&V Food supply, Inc. The issue of course is whether Mr. Rodriguez was an employee at the time of the accident. However, it is Plaintiff’s burden to present sufficient evidence. “When a defendant moves the trial court to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that sufficient contacts exist between the defendant and California to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.”  (Malone v. Equitas Reinsurance Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436.)

Plaintiff has presented no evidence to show that the subject vehicle was owned by Defendant L&V Food Supply Inc., that at the time of the accident Mr. Jose Rodriguez (the alleged driver of the truck) was employed by L&V Food Supply, Inc., and that L&V Food Supply, Inc. conducts business in the State of California or has the requisite minimum contacts with the state of California.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant L&V Food Supply, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is GRANTED.

 Moving party is ordered to give notice.