Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV38120, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38120 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 39
Carmela Lynn Jackson v. UAW, et al.
Case No. 22STCV38120
Tentative Order re: Order to Show Cause and Motion to Quash
Background
Plaintiff Carmela Lynn Jackson (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented party, filed a complaint against the following defendants: UAW, AFT, DFT, and PERF (collectively, “Defendants”). In her handwritten complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she and her children “ha[ve] suffered unrepairable damages by the terrorist cell operating ‘The State of Indiana’s Public Retirement Fund.” (Complaint, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she is a member of the “Blackfeet-Cherokee-Navajo union” and that Defendants “ha[ve] stolen what they can never repay.” (Complaint, p. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that “Government unions switched [her] birth record and [her] frequencies.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges: “I have been charged bit frequencies for 45 years [and] I have never used portals. Nor can my body withstan [sic] portal/ELLFP’s energy.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges: “[W]hile I was sleeping, the ‘Native American Onshmoin’ spirit came to retreave [sic] [her] spirit from [her] body.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff alleges that she worked as “a Detroit Public Schools Educator” and that “[t]he UAW, AFT, DFT, and PERF lied about the hours of employment, salary, medical history, and employee contributions to their own 401k, IRA, savings bonds, 403b, etc.” (Complaint, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “stole frequencies that were mine” and that “switching these frequencies allowed ‘Mock Retirement Slavery Plans’ CMR.SPJ to not only steal my children, my creations, but they were allowed to charge my children powerful alpha/beta/gamma waves.” (Complaint, p. 3.) Plaintiff further alleges: “These surges were to secure their stronghold over my children and I.” (Ibid.) The complaint alleges no causes of action.
Motion to Quash
The Detroit Federation of Teachers (the “DFT”) filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who have “minimum contacts” with the forum state. Minimum contacts exist when the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, internal quotations omitted.)
“Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. 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. In such a case, it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum. Such a defendant's contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445-446, internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Even if a nonresident defendant does not have sufficient contacts with California such that the defendant is subject to suit in California generally, the defendant may nonetheless be subject to jurisdiction in California for claims based on the defendant’s activities in the state. To assert “limited” or “specific” personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (a) the out-of-state defendant purposefully established contacts with the forum state; (b) the plaintiff's cause of action “arises out of” or is “related to” defendant's contacts with the forum state; and (c) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-478.)
“[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313.) If plaintiff meets the initial 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.)
DFT relies upon the declaration of its president, Terrence Martin (“Martin”). Martin states that DFT is a labor union that represents teachers and instructional personnel in the Detroit Public Schools Community District. Martin states that DFT operates only in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff provides no evidence to the contrary that would establish sufficient minimum contacts to support general or specific jurisdiction over the DFT in this case. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses DFT with prejudice.
Order to Show Cause
California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, requires Plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint, and to file a proof of service, within 60 days. Plaintiff failed to do so. The Court also has inherent authority to dismiss cases that are patently frivolous. (See Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181-182, citations omitted). This complaint appeared to be meritless because it asserts no causes of action; it alleges virtually no actionable facts; it provides no notice why certain defendants were named; and there appears to be no jurisdiction in California, as Plaintiff’s allegations focus on alleged misconduct in Michigan and Indiana.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court issued a written Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice under these authorities. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated January 17, 2023.) The Court authorized Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint to address these issues or to file a response. (Ibid.) Plaintiff failed to do either. The Court provided notice that “absent good cause, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice at the case management conference.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff has not established good cause to pursue this litigation, which appears to be frivolous on its face. Therefore, the Court dismisses all remaining defendants. However, the Court shall do so without prejudice in the event Plaintiff can assert facts suggesting there are valid causes of action.
Conclusion and Order
Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants the DFT’s motion to quash. DFT is dismissed with prejudice, as there are insufficient minimum contacts to support an exercise of general or specific jurisdiction over DFT in California.
2. The Court dismisses the remaining defendants without prejudice, per its written Order to Show Cause of January 17, 2023.
3. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice to Plaintiff and counsel for DFT. Further notice is not required.