Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV00091, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV00091, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00091 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: June 4, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Donnie F. Wilson v. Jersey Legends Productions, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV00091

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Shaquille O’Neal and Michael Parris

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Donnie F. Wilson

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract and wage and hour violations that was filed on January 3, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants promised him an ownership interest in Defendant Jersey Legends, LLC, in exchange for his services to produce films and other media content for Jersey Legends.

Defendants Shaquille O’Neal and Michael Parris move to quash service of the summons and complaint upon them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Defendants Michael Parris and Shaquille O’Neal are deemed to have made a general appearance this date. Defendants shall file a demurrer, answer, or other responsive pleading within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants Shaquille O’Neal and Michael Parris move to quash service of the summons and complaint upon them 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 Defendants (“Defendants”) brought this motion under section 418.10. Thus, filing this motion does not constitute a general appearance.

Legal Standard

On a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint, the moving party must first present some admissible evidence, such as declarations or affidavits, to place the issue of minimum contacts before the Court. (School Dist. of Oskaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) “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].) 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.)

Personal Jurisdiction

Defendants contend that the Court lacks either general personal jurisdiction or specific personal jurisdiction over the individual Defendants O’Neal and Parris because they are not California residents and do not have a sufficient relationship with the State of California to establish jurisdiction. 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.)

Defendants contend the Court lasks general jurisdiction over them, and Plaintiff does not dispute that argument, contending only that the Court has specific 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.)

Defendants argue that they did not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California. As the Court of Appeal recently stated:

For 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, exploiting 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.”

(Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 977, quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2021) __ U.S. __, __ [131 S.Ct. 1017, 1024].) Personal jurisdiction over an entity does not automatically confer personal jurisdiction over its officers, directors or agents. (Calder v. Jones (1984) 464 U.S. 783, 790.) Conversely, however, an agent’s minimum contacts with the forum may be imputed to the principal. (E.g. Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co., Ltd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 536-37.) That said, a defendant’s minimum contacts must arise out of that defendant’s conduct independent of the relationship with the plaintiff. (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 57 U.S. 277, 284.) “[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” (Id. at 285.)

As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff contends that he was contacted by Defendant Parris to develop film and media content for Defendant O’Neal’s production company, Jersey Legends Productions. (Complaint ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Parris, as agent for the other Defendants, agreed to grant Plaintiff an 18% ownership interest in Jersey Legends in exchange for his services. (Id. ¶ 15.) According to Plaintiff, although he contributed to two film projects and served as Head of Creative/Partner for Jersey Legends, he was never compensated pursuant to that agreement, and Jersey Legends was acquired by Authentic Brands Group in March 2023. (Complaint ¶¶ 16, 18-23.)

Defendants contend that they do not have sufficient contacts with California insofar as their only contacts with California that are relevant to this dispute are their interactions with Plaintiff directly, which are not sufficient under the precedent established by Walden v. Fiore. However, these arguments are not supported by the evidence presented by Defendants. Defendant Parris states that he has resided in Virginia since 2017, and that he co-owned Jersey Legends, a Delaware LLC, with Defendant O’Neal’s trust between its founding in 2017 and its sale in 2023. (Declaration of Michael Parris ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) Defendant Parris dismisses Plaintiff’s residence in California as “sheer happenstance” but does not further describe his own contacts with respect to California beyond stating that Plaintiff’s state of residence was not relevant to his services to Jersey Legends. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant O’Neal states that he moved to Georgia “prior to 2017” and has lived there ever since, that he did not travel to California in relation to the film projects to which Plaintiff contributed, and that Plaintiff’s services to Jersey Legends did not depend on his residence in California. (Declaration of Shaquille O’Neal ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-4.) Again, Defendant O’Neal fails to provide any factual predicate for challenging specific jurisdiction over him in California.

Although Defendants do not have a substantial burden on a motion to quash, they must present some admissible evidence on the issue of minimum contacts before the burden shifts to Plaintiff to place minimum contacts at issue. (School Dist. of Oskaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) The statements in Defendants’ declarations do not speak to Defendants’ contacts with California or lack thereof, nor whether those contacts have any relation to the instant dispute. The assertion that Plaintiff’s residence in California was not relevant to the services provided is a conclusion, not evidence. Moreover, statements that neither Defendant traveled to California in relation to the projects on which Plaintiff worked does not prove that Defendants had no contacts with California, merely that they were not present in California in connection with Plaintiff’s projects. Defendants’ declarations in support of this motion do not contain relevant, admissible evidence that properly places the issue of minimum contacts before the Court. Defendants have thus failed to meet their minimal burden on this motion.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [DATE] ___________________________________

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.