Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2023-00022614-CU-BC-CTL 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00022614-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00022614-CU-BC-CTL NATIONAL INJURY ADVOCATES LLC VS MORGAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Service of Summons, 07/28/2023

Tentative Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Summons National Injury Advocates v. Morgan, Case No. 2023-22614 Oct. 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a contract action arising out of a 'series of contracts [beginning in 2018] for providing marketing and related legal services to aggrieved individuals who had been the victims of negligent medical device products and medicines.' Plaintiff alleges it performed its portion of the agreements, but defendants failed to compensate it for its services. The complaint seeking damages in the amount of $299,000.00 was filed in May of 2023.

Presently, defendants, who are both Missouri residents, move to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.* ROA 10-15. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 18-19. Defendants filed reply. ROA 20-21. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with this motion.

The case is also set for a CMC. ROA 16-17.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. 'Personal jurisdiction may be had on either a general (all-purpose) or specific (case-linked) basis.' Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1070. General jurisdiction extends to 'any and all claims' brought against a defendant. Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District (2021) 592 U.S.__, 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1024. 'For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile[.]' Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 924.

Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 284. 'A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits or purposefully directed his activities at the forum state; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002115 60 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NATIONAL INJURY ADVOCATES LLC VS MORGAN [IMAGED] 37-2023-00022614-CU-BC-CTL principles of fair play and substantial justice.' Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 937, 964.

B. 'When a defendant challenges jurisdiction through a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate facts, as to each nonresident defendant, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence.' Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222-23. 'The plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate.' Id. at 223. 'An unverified complaint has no evidentiary value in meeting plaintiff's burden of proving minimum contacts.' DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1091. 'If the plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.' Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291.

3. Discussion and Ruling.

A. The motion to quash service of summons is granted as to defendant Florek. Plaintiff submitted no jurisdictional evidence whatsoever regarding Florek. Accordingly, plaintiff has not met its burden of justifying the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Florek. See Strasner, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at 222-23.

B. The motion to quash service of summons is granted as to defendant Morgan.

With respect to general jurisdiction, plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Morgan is 'domiciled' in California. It is undisputed that Morgan currently resides in Missouri. See Serafini v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 70, 79-80 (where individual with sufficient substantial contact in a state ceases that activity prior to service of process in the action, general jurisdiction over that individual no longer exists).

This court's instinct was that maintaining an active license to practice law in California would be enough to confer general jurisdiction over the lawyer in question (particularly where, as here, the dispute involves law practice-related activities). Paying bar dues, complying with MCLE requirements, and doing the other things required of California lawyers under the Business & Professions Code and the CRPC seemed to the court to constitute 'substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts' with a California regulatory body (the State Bar), and thus with the state. But it turns out the case law is to the contrary: maintaining a license to practice law in California is not enough by itself to subject a nonresident lawyer to personal jurisdiction here. Crea v. Busby (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 509, 515. The Crea court's single paragraph analysis of the general jurisdiction question regarding a non-resident member of the State Bar is hardly thorough, but it is binding. It may very well be that Crea v. Busby was wrongly decided on this point, but it is emphatically not for this court to say so. Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.

Plaintiff has likewise failed to establish that California can exercise specific jurisdiction over Morgan.

Where a contract is alleged to form the basis for a state's exercise of specific jurisdiction against an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit in the state, it must be shown that the defendant has purposefully directed its activities at residents of that state, and the litigation must result from injuries that arise out of or relate to the defendant's activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.

462, 472.

In this case, assuming without deciding that Morgan purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in California, plaintiff has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that its claims 'arise out of or relate to' Morgan's California activities. There is no evidence regarding when Morgan breached the parties' contracts, how he breached them, or whether his California contacts had any bearing on the breaches. See Strasner, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at 223; DVI, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 1091. Nor has any evidence been submitted concerning plaintiff's residence. See Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 946, 958 ('A plaintiff's residence can 'be relevant in assessing the link between the defendant's forum contacts and the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002115 60 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NATIONAL INJURY ADVOCATES LLC VS MORGAN [IMAGED] 37-2023-00022614-CU-BC-CTL plaintiff's suit.'') (quoting Ford Motor, supra, 141 S.Ct. at 1031-32). Accordingly, based on plaintiff's sparse evidentiary submission, the court finds that plaintiff has not established the requisite connection between the controversy and Morgan's California contacts so as to subject him to specific jurisdiction in this state. The court therefore need not address whether the assertion of jurisdiction over Morgan is fair.

See Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 291; see also LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, 370 fn. 9.

C. This ruling is dispositive of the entire case in California; the court renders no opinion regarding whether plaintiff can now file suit in Missouri. All future dates, including the CMC set for today, are hereby vacated.

______________________ *One defendant (Morgan) is a member of the Missouri and California Bars (among others). The other defendant (Florek) is not a member of the California Bar.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002115 60