Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV40706, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40706    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 20, 2023                TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         John Doe #1 J.J. v. Boys & Girls Clusb of America, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV40706           

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:               Specially Appearing Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of America

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff John Doe #1 J.J.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a child sexual abuse action that was filed on December 29, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by adult leaders, members, or volunteers of the Youth & Family Club of Pomona Valley in 2010.

Specially Appearing Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of America moves to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Specially Appearing Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of America moves to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Special Appearance 

No motion under Code of Civil Procedure 418.10 “shall be deemed a general appearance by the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(d).) Here, Specially Appearing Defendant (“Defendant”) brought this motion under section 418.10. Thus, filing this motion does not constitute a general appearance.  

Legal Standard

“When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”  (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568; see also Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1312-13 [“Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.”].) Evidence of the facts giving rise to personal jurisdiction or their absence may be in the form of declarations. (Arensen v. Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 991, 995.) The Court should exclude evidence that would be inadmissible at trial. (See, e.g., Judd v. Superior Court (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 38, 43-44 [Court of Appeal excluded inadmissible hearsay evidence offered in support of affirmation of trial court’s denial of motion to quash, and subsequently reversed the trial court’s denial].)

Timeliness 

A motion to quash must be made as Defendant’s initial appearance in the action, on or before the last day to plead “or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow.” (Code Civ. Proc.  § 418.10(a).) Filing the motion also extends the time within Defendant may answer or demur. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 418.10(b).) 

Here, Plaintiff filed two proofs of service on June 16, 2023, stating that personal service was made on June 2, 2023 (Proof of Personal Service) and that Substituted Service was made on June 9, 2023. (Proof of Substituted Service.) This motion was filed and served on July 18, 2023, outside the time to respond to the Complaint for either form of service. (See Code Civ. Proc. 412.20.) As Plaintiff has substantively responded to the motion without objecting on this basis, however, the Court will consider the motion on its merits, notwithstanding the late filing.

Specially Appearing Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

            Specially Appearing Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint in this Action; (2) the BGCA Charter Chapter 29 section 706, codified at 36 U.S.C § 31101 et seq.; (3) the 2009 Constitution and Membership Requirements of BCGA; (4) the August 25, 2010 BGCA Constitution and Membership Requirements; (5) Defendant Youth & Family Club of Pomona Valley’s Disaffiliation letter; (6) Defendant Youth & Family Club of Pomona Valley’s website; (7) Defendant Youth & Family Club of Pomona Valley’s Articles of Incorporation; (8) the Club’s Board of Directors website page; and (9) the Club’s Form 990 filings from 2001 to 2018.

            Specially Appearing Defendant’s Requests No. 1 is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records). Requests Nos. 2 through 4 are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(a) (statutory law of the United States). (See Regents of Univ. of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 130, 135.) Requests Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9 are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(h) (facts and propositions not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy). Request No. 7 is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c) (official acts).

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice 

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint in this action. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records.)

Specially Appearing Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections

Specially Appearing Defendant objects to portions of the Declaration of James West in support of the Opposition. Specifically, Specially Appearing Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 as improperly authenticated, improper hearsay evidence, and irrelevant because the relevant conduct occurred in or around 2010. Specially Appearing Defendant’s Objection is SUSTANED. Statements on a website in 2023 are not facially relevant to allegations concerning tortious conduct occurring in 2010, and Plaintiff provides no evidence that would show that this information is applicable to the relevant time period. (See Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717; Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Fiscus (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1239.)

Analysis 

Specially Appearing Defendant argues that the service of the summons and complaint should be quashed because the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Specially Appearing Defendant. A non-resident defendant may be subject to either general or specific jurisdiction. (See Elkman v. National States Insurance Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 1314.)

            The parties agree that the Court does not have general jurisdiction over Specially Appearing Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the Specially Appearing Defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The Court will therefore confine its analysis to the question of specific jurisdiction.

“Where general jurisdiction cannot be established, a court may assume specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a particular case if the plaintiff shows the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; [ie.] the nonresident purposefully directed its activities at forum residents or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law.  (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235.)

Specific jurisdiction involves a 3-part test in California: “(1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” (Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 [applying California law].).” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (Rambam) (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.)

Specially Appearing Defendant argues that it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California.  Purposeful availment in tort cases is based upon “(1) intentional actions (2) expressly aimed at the forum state (3) causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered –and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered –in the forum state.” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 1057-58.)

Specially Appearing Defendant contends that the Complaint alleges no conduct expressly aimed at California. The Complaint alleges that Specially Appearing Defendant “operated as a national organization involved in the education and development of youth and is and/or was authorized to conduct and transact business in the state of California.” (Complaint ¶ 10.) Plaintiff asserts in opposition that Specially Appearing Defendant has purposefully availed itself of California, relying on the Defendant’s governing documents, which impose various operating standards for its member organizations, such as financial audits, payment of dues, minimum benefits and salary structures, maintenance of liability insurance, and periodic organizational assessments and background checks. (Plaintiff’s Exh. A. Art. II.) Plaintiff contends that these measures show that Specially Appearing Defendant exerts such control over its affiliates that it should be considered to have purposefully availed itself of the benefits of California. Plaintiff argues that, in particular, the requirement that member organizations hold liability insurance, covering both the local club and Defendant as an additional insured, evidences purposeful availment, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s explanation that exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable when a corporation purposefully avails itself of a forum state because “it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1986) 444 U.S. 286, 297 [finding no personal jurisdiction because there was no purposeful availment].)

Plaintiff has set the cart before the horse. That Specially Appearing Defendant was able to take such measures does not mean that it purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the privilege of conducting activities in the State of California. At best, a requirement that member organizations maintain liability insurance would be evidence that the exercise of jurisdiction over Specially Appearing Defendant would be reasonable had it purposefully availed itself of the benefits of this state. However, none of the requirements set forth in the governing documents, which, as Plaintiff freely concedes, are equally applicable to all member organizations nationwide, evidence conduct expressly aimed at the State of California, and Plaintiff has produced no other evidence of any intentional conduct by Specially Appearing Defendant which is so directed.  Further, as Specially Appearing Defendant emphasizes, the governing documents expressly confirm that the local club’s own board of directors and other leadership “shall have complete authority and control” over its operations, while Specially Appearing Defendant shall have “no authority whatsoever” over such matters.  (Defendants’ Exh. C, Requirements for Membership (2009) Art. I, § 4.1; see also Art. IV, § 4.) 

            The Court finds based on the foregoing that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Specially Appearing Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of California, and therefore that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over Specially Appearing Defendant. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction on this independent basis, the Court therefore declines to address the arguments concerning the remaining two elements of the test for specific jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Specially Appearing Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Court to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2023                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.