Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV15529, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15529    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 29

Javeri v. Hilton Hotels Corporation
23STCV15529
Motion to Quash filed by Specially Appearing Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and Park Hotels & Resorts Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On July 3, 2023, Dev Javeri (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Hilton Hotels Corporation; Hilton Worldwide, Inc.; Hilton Worldwide; Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.; The Wayfarer Downtown LA Tapestry Collection by Hilton; and Does 1 through 20 for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of employees, (4) strict products liability- failure to warn, (5) breach of express warranty, and (6) breach of implied warranty arising out of an injury Plaintiff sustained on July 2, 2021.

On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name 813 S Flower St Associates LLC as Doe 1.

Currently before the Court and set for hearing on March 27 is a motion to quash service of summons filed on February 25, 2025, Specially Appearing Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. a/k/a Hilton Worldwide (“HWHI”) and Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (erroneously sued as Hilton Worldwide Inc. and f/k/a Hilton Hotels Corporation (“Park Hotels”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice.

Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 21, and Defendants filed a reply on March 24.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, a defendant may file a motion to quash service of a 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 defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.”  (Vons Companies. v. Seabest Foods (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; accord Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062; Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291; Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163; Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313; Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)  “If the plaintiff meets this initial burden, then the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”  (Pavlovich v. Super. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 273; accord Snowney, supra, 35 Cal. 4th at p. 1062; Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449; Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291.)

Courts in California “may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)  A court in California may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if the plaintiff presents sufficient jurisdictional evidence to establish that “the defendant has such minimum contacts with California that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Bruce v. Shabaab (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 578, 589.)

There are two different kinds of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.  General jurisdiction applies when a defendant is domiciled in the forum or is otherwise “essentially at home.”  (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (2021) 592 U.S. 351, 358; see also Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.)  Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, examines the relationship between the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the causes of action asserted in the litigation; it generally requires that there be some evidence of “purposeful availment” or other connection between the defendant and the forum and that the litigation arises out of the defendant’s forum-related contacts.  (Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at pp. 359-360.) 

Jurisdictional facts must be established through admissible evidence, including declarations, affidavits, or properly authenticated documents.  (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291; In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)  The plaintiff cannot, however, rely simply on allegations in an unverified complaint or inadmissible hearsay.  (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291.)  In an appropriate case, discovery on the jurisdictional facts may be permitted.  (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173; see also 1 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶ 3:386.)

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request judicial notice of two prior Superior Court orders.  The Court grants the request (which is unopposed) but notes that trial court orders do not have precedential value.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition.

This matter arises out of an alleged personal injury sustained by Plaintiff at the Lily Rose restaurant in The Wayfarer Downtown LA, Tapestry Collection by Hilton hotel located at 813 South Flower Street in Los Angeles.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 11.)  Defendants moves to quash service of the summons, arguing (1) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants; and (2) that service was not properly effected.

The Court begins with the question of personal jurisdiction.

Defendants submit the declaration of James O. Smith, vice president of Defendant HWHI.  Mr. Smith states that HWHI is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Virginia.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 6.)  HWHI does not conduct business in California and does not have an agent for service of process in California.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  HWHI is a holding company and does not have any employees in California or anywhere else.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

Mr. Smith also states that Park Hotels is the result of a spin off from HWHI in 2017 and since that time has operated as an independent company with no affiliation with the Hilton hotel and hospitality business.  (Id., 11.)  Prior to the spin off, the name of the entity was Hilton Hotels Corporation, and then Hilton Worldwide, Inc., and then Park Hotels.  (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.)  Park Hotels is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Virginia.  (Smith Decl., Exh. 1.)

The current franchisee of the hotel at issue is 813 South Flower Street Associates.  (Id., ¶ 13.)  The franchisee owns the hotel and is responsible for operating, managing, and controlling the day-to-day operations of the hotel.  (Id., ¶ 15.)  At the time of the accident, neither HWHI nor Park Hotels was a party to any agreement relating to the operation of the hotel.  (Id., ¶¶ 16-19.)  At the time of the accident, neither HWHI nor Park Hotels employed, controlled, managed, or supervised any personnel working at the hotel or had any agents working at the hotel.  (Id., ¶¶ 20-21.)  At the time of the accident, neither HWHI nor Park Hotels controlled, operated, or maintained the facilities, systems, or equipment at the hotel.   (Id., ¶¶ 22-23.)  Neither HWHI nor Park Hotels has ever held title to or leased the real property associated with the hotel.  (Id., ¶ 24.)

Plaintiff argues, in its opposition, that HWHI and Park Hotels have minimum contacts with California but presents no evidence in support of this argument.  As noted above, on a motion to quash service of a summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of presenting facts sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction.  On this record, Plaintiff has not met this initial burden.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted on jurisdictional grounds.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Court QUASHES service of the summons on Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (also known as Hilton Worldwide).

The Court QUASHES service of the summons on Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (sued as Hilton Worldwide Inc. and formerly known as Hilton Hotels Corporation).

Specially appearing moving parties are ordered to give notice.