Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 23STCV21628, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

RICHARD KEITH LATMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. TIA GEDDIE, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	23STCV21628
	Hearing Date:	January 5, 2024
	Hearing Time:	2:00 p.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER

Plaintiffs Richard Keith Latman and TheCRM Corporation (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on September 8, 2023 against Defendant Tia Geddie (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) intentional interference with performance of a contract, and (2) slander.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “emailed the personal email addresses of known vendors of THECRM CORPORATION to inform them of pending litigation involving Plaintiffs THECRM CORPORATION and RICHARD KEITH LATMAN, CEO of the THECRM CORPORATION, in an effort to defame Plaintiffs and maliciously interfere with an established business relationship between the THECRM CORPORATION and Blue Compass RV Group.” (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s a result of Defendant’s email to Blue Compass RV Group, the business relationship between THECRM CORPORATION and RICHARD KEITH LATMAN has been strained and it has taken time and financial costs to restore and maintain the business relationship.” (Compl., ¶ 7.)

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a “Proof of Service Cover Page” attaching a “Manatee County Sheriff’s Office Return of Service.” The Return of Service indicates, inter alia,

that the summons and Complaint were served on Defendant on September 20, 2023 and that “[s]ervice was completed at 6830 44 Ter E Bradenton, FL 34203.”

Defendant now moves for an order “quashing the service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, sustaining a Demurrer to the complaint in its entirety filed by the Plaintiffs without leave to amend, and thus dismissing the action.” Plaintiffs filed a “response” to the motion and demurrer.

Defendant states that she “requests the court take judicial notice of Exhibit B pending case 23SMCV03755, specifically page 5, paragraph 16 of the verified answered filed on behalf of the Plaintiff on 9/13/2023.” (Motion at page 3:20-22.)

The Court notes that “[a]ny request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with rule 3.1306 (c).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (l).) Defendant’s request for judicial notice is not made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested.

In addition, “[a] party requesting judicial notice of material under Evidence Code sections 452 or 453 must provide the court and each party with a copy of the material.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306, subd (c).) The Court notes that there is no “Exhibit B” attached to the motion. Thus, Defendant does not appear to provide a copy of the material that is the subject of her request for judicial notice.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Defendant’s purported request for judicial notice.

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides in part: “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…(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” ((Id., § 418.10, subd. (a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (e), “[a] defendant or cross-defendant may make a motion under this section and simultaneously answer, demur, or move to strike the complaint or cross-complaint.”

“California courts may exercise jurisdiction on any basis that is not inconsistent with the state and federal Constitutions. Thus, the inquiry in California is whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with the limits imposed by federal due process.” ((Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 865 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) Due process permits courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who have “minimum contact” with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash. (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)

“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., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 445-446 [internal quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted.]) “General jurisdiction, as its name implies, extends to any and all claims brought against a defendant. Those claims need not relate to the forum State or the defendant’s activity there; they may concern events and conduct anywhere in the world. But that breadth imposes a correlative limit: Only a select set of affiliations with a forum will expose a defendant to such sweeping jurisdiction. In what [the Supreme Court] ha[s] called the paradigm case, an individual is subject to general jurisdiction in her place of domicile. And the equivalent forums for a corporation are its place of incorporation and principal place of business.” (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 976 [internal quotations and references to [Citation.] omitted].)

“If general jurisdiction is not established, a nonresident defendant may still be subject to California’s specific jurisdiction if a three-prong test is met.” ((Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust New Zealand Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1568 [internal emphasis omitted].) “Specific jurisdiction will be found over an out-of-state defendant only when (1) the [out-of-state] defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, (2) the controversy [giving rise to the present lawsuit] is related to or arises out of [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum, and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. The plaintiff asking the forum state to exert jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant bears the initial burden of establishing the first two elements by a preponderance of the evidence, and if the plaintiff does so, the out-of-state defendant then bears the burden of convincing the court why the exertion of personal jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 243, 253 (internal quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted).)

In the instant motion, Defendant asserts that “[t]his Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because Tia Geddie (Defendant) whom has entered a special and limited appearance here solely for the purpose of bringing here this Motion to Quash and Demurrer, is at all times a legal and permanent residence [sic] of the State of Florida…Plaintiff’s pleading fails to provide sufficient allegations or facts to support an assertion of general or specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the State of California.” (Mot. at p. 6:4-12.) Defendant also asserts that “[t]he Complaint filed on behalf of the Plaintiff fails to allege ‘purposeful availment’ of the Defendant to the State of California.” (Mot. at p. 8:23-25.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “[a]t all times mentioned herein, defendant TIA GEDDIE, was an individual residing in the State of Florida.” (Compl., ¶ 1.)

In the opposition, Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute Defendant’s assertion that she is not subject to general jurisdiction in California. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that “there is specific jurisdiction in this case.” (Response at p. 7:8.) Plaintiffs cite to Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 977, where the Court of Appeal found that “[f]or a state to have specific jurisdiction, the defendant must take some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State…The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not random, isolated, or fortuitous. They must show that the defendant deliberately reached out beyond its home—by, for example, exploi[ting] a market in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there. Yet even then—because the defendant is not at home—the forum State may exercise jurisdiction in only certain cases. The plaintiff’s claims … must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts’ with the forum. Thus, a two-part showing by the plaintiff is required to establish specific jurisdiction: [(1)] the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, … and [(2)] the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to’ those activities.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

Plaintiffs assert that here, “Defendants [sic] specific actions in this case targeted the Plaintiffs who are California residents. Defendant by directly emailing current clients of TheCRM CORPORATION, which is essentially at home in the State of California and Plaintiff RICHARD KEITH LATMAN who has been a resident of the State of California for the past three years, it was foreseeable that Defendant’s actions would specifically damage Plaintiffs in the State of California.” (Response at p. 7:19-24.)

Plaintiffs submit an affidavit of Richard Latman in support of the response. Mr. Latman states, inter alia, that “I am the Chief Executive Officer of THECRM CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as ‘CRM’ CRM is not a resident of Texas, but is a foreign corporation incorporated in Delaware which previously had its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida and now has its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California where I currently have residency and have been operating as such for the past three years. In 2024, CRM will be registered to do business in California from its base of operation for the past three years…CRM sells software via its passive and static website which is used only for advertising and information purposes. Potential clients contact CRM through an email link, but CRM cannot directly respond to them through the website; instead a sales representative will reach out to the potential client personally and the same is true with regard to the State of Florida.” (Latman Affidavit.)

But as Plaintiffs acknowledge, “a two-part showing by the plaintiff is required to establish specific jurisdiction: [(1)] the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, … and [(2)] the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp., supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 977.) Plaintiffs do not appear to provide any competent evidence regarding Defendant’s purported activities directed at “residents of the forum.” To the extent Plaintiffs are relying on “Exhibit B” attached to the response, such Exhibit is not authenticated or discussed in any supporting declaration. As set forth above, “[s]pecific jurisdiction will be found over an out-of-state defendant only when (1) the [out-of-state] defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits, (2) the controversy [giving rise to the present lawsuit] is related to or arises out of [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum, and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. The plaintiff asking the forum state to exert jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant bears the initial burden of establishing the first two elements by a preponderance of the evidence, and if the plaintiff does so, the out-of-state defendant then bears the burden of convincing the court why the exertion of personal jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.” (Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C., supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 253 [internal quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted, underline added].)

To the extent Plaintiffs are relying on the allegations of the Complaint, “[o]n a challenge to personal jurisdiction by a motion to quash, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the¿factual bases justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. The plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and other competent evidence to carry this burden and cannot simply rely on allegations in an unverified complaint. If the plaintiff meets this burden, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.¿” (¿ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 209-210 [internal quotations and citations omitted]¿.)[1] The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint in this action attaches a “Verification” by Plaintiffs’ counsel. However, the Verification is not signed.

The Court notes that “[t]he verification may be signed by the attorney under certain circumstances (e.g., client out of county or unable to sign); but if signed by the attorney, must state why it is not made by the party. [See CCP § 446(a)].” (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 6:309.) Here, the Verification attached to the Complaint in this action states, inter alia, that “I, James Alexakis, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which I believe to be true.” (Compl., Verification.) However, the Verification is not signed by any party, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not “set forth in the affidavit the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 446.) Plaintiffs do not argue or cite any legal authority demonstrating that the Verification attached to the Complaint is sufficient.

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have met their burden of providing evidence to demonstrate that Defendant “has purposefully availed [herself] of forum benefits,” or that “the controversy [giving rise to the present lawsuit] is related to or arises out of [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum.” (Jacqueline B. v. Rawls Law Group, P.C., supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 253 [internal quotations omitted].)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for an order to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.[2]

[1]Similarly, in Ziller Electronics Lab Gmbh v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233, cited by Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal noted that “[w]hen 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. 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.” (Internal citations omitted.)

[2]In light of the foregoing, the Court need not and does not address Defendant’s simultaneous demurrer.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50