Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00039353-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024  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) 37-2023-00039353-CU-BC-CTL ROWE VS BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Service of Summons, 10/13/2023

The motion (ROA # 11) of specially appearing defendant BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC for an order to quash the service of summons is GRANTED.

A defendant, on or before the last day to file a responsive pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).

When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service.

Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to justify jurisdiction. DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1090. The plaintiff must present facts demonstrating that the conduct of the defendant related to the claim is such as to constitute constitutionally cognizable minimum contacts. Id. at 1090-1091.

'A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.' Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10. The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with these Constitutions if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 268. In making this determination, courts have identified two ways to establish personal jurisdiction via minimum contacts. Id. Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Id. at 268-269.

A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if the defendant's contacts in the forum state are substantial continuous and systematic. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 445. 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. Id. 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. Id. at 446.

A corporation's designation of an agent for service of process and its qualification to do business in California are, by themselves, insufficient to permit for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Gray Line Tours v. Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 190, 193–194.

The 'paradigm' forums in which a corporation will be considered 'at home' and thus subject to general jurisdiction are: (1) its place of incorporation; and (2) its principal place of business. Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) at ¶ 3:217 (citing Daimler AG v. Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036174  51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ROWE VS BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00039353-CU-BC-CTL Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137 and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 923-924). 'Though a corporation is not necessarily subject to general jurisdiction only in the 'paradigm forum,' general jurisdiction is not available in every state in which the corporation 'engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business.' The inquiry is not whether the corporation's in-forum contacts are in some sense continuous and systematic; 'it is whether that corporation's affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.'' Id. at ¶ 3:217.1 (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, supra, 571 US at 138-139).

The general jurisdiction inquiry examines a corporation's activities everywhere, not just in the forum state, to determine where the corporation can properly be considered at 'home.' Id. at ¶ 3:217.3.

'...[T]he general jurisdiction inquiry does not focus solely on the magnitude of the defendant's in-state contacts.... General jurisdiction instead calls for an appraisal of a corporation's activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them. Otherwise, 'at home' would be synonymous with 'doing business' tests framed before specific jurisdiction evolved in the United States.... Nothing in International Shoe and its progeny suggests that a particular quantum of local activity should give a State authority over a far larger quantum of activity having no connection to any in-state activity.' Daimler AG v. Bauman, supra, 571 US at 139, fn. 20 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

In BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (2017) 581 U.S. 402, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that general jurisdiction in Montana was not established over a railroad company that was incorporated in Delaware, had its principal place of business in Texas, about 6% of its total track mileage was in Montana, it employed less than 5% of its work force in Montana, it generated less than 10% of its total revenue in Montana, and it maintained one of its 24 automotive facilities in Montana. This opinion described the test for general jurisdiction as follows: Goodyear and Daimler clarified that '[a] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.' Daimler, 571 U.S., at 127 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S., at 919). The 'paradigm' forums in which a corporate defendant is 'at home,' we explained, are the corporation's place of incorporation and its principal place of business. Daimler, 571 U.S., at 137; Goodyear, 564 U.S., at 924. The exercise of general jurisdiction is not limited to these forums; in an 'exceptional case,' a corporate defendant's operations in another forum 'may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.' Daimler, 571 U.S., at 139, n. 19. We suggested that Perkins v. Benguet Consol.

Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), exemplified such a case. Daimler, 571 U.S., at 139, n. 19. In Perkins, war had forced the defendant corporation's owner to temporarily relocate the enterprise from the Philippines to Ohio. 342 U.S., at 447–448. Because Ohio then became 'the center of the corporation's wartime activities,' Daimler, 571 U.S., at 130, n. 8, suit was proper there, Perkins, 342 U.S., at 448.

Id. at 413.

In this case, the evidence demonstrates that defendant Beacon Hill is a staffing agency. It is a Massachusetts LLC with its primary place of business located in Boston. Plaintiff resides in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff communicated with Amanda Blackman, who works in Beacon Hill's Chicago office regarding a temporary position with defendant Nan McKay and Associates, Inc. Although defendant Nan McKay and Associates is a California corporation with its principal place of business in El Cajon, the engagement letter concerned a temporary assignment for plaintiff Rowe originating from Nan McKay's Chicago office. The position required plaintiff Rowe to work remotely from Rowe's residence in Chicago on a project concerning the State of New York. This employment position ultimately did not materialize and resulted in this action in California.

Plaintiff presents additional evidence tending to establish that defendant promotes itself as a national staffing agency with offices in every state. This includes several offices in California. Defendant promotes itself through extensive internet advertising that promotes employment opportunities across Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036174  51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ROWE VS BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00039353-CU-BC-CTL the nation, including many in California. In this way, defendant solicits and engages both California workers and employers. In addition, plaintiff notes that defendant Beacon has been registered with the California Secretary of State to conduct business in this State since November 2005.

The evidence summarized above is not sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on 'general jurisdiction' minimum contacts. As discussed above, registration to transact business in California is not determinative. In addition, defendant's national business model does not demonstrate its establishment of a 'home' in California.

If the event a nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, it may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum if the defendant has purposefully availed itself of forum benefits, and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant's contacts with the forum. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra at 445.

The forum contacts necessary to establish specific jurisdiction involve a nonresident who has 'purposefully directed' activities at forum residents, or who has 'purposefully derived benefit' from forum activities, or 'purposefully availed' itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id. at 446. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (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 fair play and substantial justice. Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.

As discussed above, there is evidence that defendant Beacon purposefully directed its business activities at California residents, and it purposefully derived benefit from business activities in California.

It solicits and engages both California workers and employers through its nationwide business model.

However, critically, this legal action is not related to, and does not arise out of, defendant Beacon's contacts with California. Plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, Illinois and communicated with Beacon's employee in the Chicago, Illinois office. Although defendant Nan McKay and Associates is a California corporation, the engagement letter concerned a temporary assignment for plaintiff Rowe originating from Nan McKay's Chicago office. The position required plaintiff Rowe to work remotely from Rowe's residence in Chicago on a project concerning the State of New York.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036174  51