Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 25STCV02811, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV02811 Hearing Date: June 12, 2025 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: June 12, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT
SET
CASE: Craig Bordon, et al. v. CytoDyn Inc., et
al.
CASE NO.: 25STCV02811 
MOTION
TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant Tyler Blok.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Craig
Bordon, 3NT Management, LLC, Asset Recovery Association, Inc.; Behrouz Rajaee
as Trustee of the Rajaee Trust DTD April 23, 1999.
CASE
HISTORY:
·
01/31/25: Complaint filed.
·
04/14/25: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs are
investors in the corporate Defendant who allege that Defendants fraudulently
induced them into wiring Defendants money under the false pretense of selling
additional shares in the corporation.
Specially Appearing Defendant Tyler
Blok moves to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Specially Appearing Defendant’s
Motion to Quash is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION:
Specially Appearing Defendant Tyler
Blok 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
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.)
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant
requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Summons and Complaint
in this Action; (2) the First Amended Complaint; (3) the Proof of Service of
the Summons and Complaint on Defendant; and (4) the docket in this action.
Although it is not strictly necessary to request that the Court take judicial
notice of its own case file for the instant action, Defendant’s requests are GRANTED
pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant
Blok contends that the Court lacks both general personal jurisdiction and
specific personal jurisdiction over him because he does not have a sufficient
relationship with the State of California. 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.) As Plaintiffs only contend that Defendant is subject to
specific jurisdiction, the Court will confine its analysis to that issue. (See
Opposition p. 3:12.)
“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; [i.e.]
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.)
Defendant argues that he has not purposefully availed
himself of the privilege of doing business in the State of California.
Defendant offers a sworn statement in which he categorically denies traveling
to California, residing in or doing any business in California, or selling or
marketing any investments or securities in California. (Declaration of Tyler
Blok ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) Defendant also specifically denies selling, or offering to
sell, any security to Plaintiffs, reaching out to them in California to solicit
any investment, or meeting personally with the Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Defendant has thus offered some evidence tending to show his lack of contact
with the State of California.
In response to Defendant’s showing, Plaintiffs assert that
Defendant has established sufficient contacts with California because, by his
own admission, he was present for the sales discussions on which this action is
based, sent email correspondence to Plaintiffs, and personally removed
Plaintiffs from a shareholder meeting. (Declaration of Steve Buchwalter ISO
Opp. Exh. C; see also Declarations of Criag Bordon and Behrouz Rajaee ISO Opp.
¶¶ 4, 6; Exh. B.) These assertions are not sufficient to demonstrate, by a
preponderance of evidence, that this Defendant directed his activities at the
State of California to the degree necessary to establish purposeful availment. First,
this evidence merely tends to show conduct targeted at the Plaintiffs, not at
the State of California, as is required. (Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust
New Zealand Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1570.) Although Plaintiffs
purport to cite authorities tending to show that solicitation of investors can
establish purposeful availment, close reading of the cases cited reveals those
authorities to be inapposite. For example, in Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v.
Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, the Court of Appeal found a bank
was subject to specific jurisdiction because it had solicited investments from multiple
investors and had visited those potential clients in the State of California. (Anglo
Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 975.) A
similar ruling in National Life of Florida Corp. v. Superior Court (1971)
21 Cal.App.3d 281 also involved in-person meetings with clients in California.
(National Life of Florida Corp. v. Superior Court (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d
281, 287-88.) No such facts are presented here, and Plaintiffs’ bare assertion
that Corporations Code section 25008 applies does not explain why the Court
should reach a contrary conclusion.
It
is true, as Plaintiff argues, that electronic communications can establish
specific jurisdiction without in-person activities. (See Hall v. LaRonde (1997)
56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1344 [electronic communications, ongoing client support,
and continuing licensing relationship established personal jurisdiction].)
However, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence of the type of substantial,
ongoing conduct by Defendant Blok himself that would ordinarily establish
specific jurisdiction. Nor is the Court persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments
concerning the public policy behind California fraud prevention statutes, as
those policy concerns do not defeat the basic due process element of personal
jurisdiction.
Although Plaintiffs request, in the alternative, that the
Court permit jurisdictional discovery on this issue, Plaintiffs do not explain
how such discovery is likely to lead to the production of at least some
evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction. (See In re Automobile Antitrust
Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.) The Court therefore does
not find good cause to permit jurisdictional discovery.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Specially Appearing Defendant’s
Motion to Quash is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2025 ___________________________________
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.