Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV02222, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02222    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   June 10, 2024                         

CASE NAME:           Anne Heiting v. Rocket Mortgage LLC

CASE NO.:                24STCV02222

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Rocket Mortgage LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Anne Heiting

REQUESTED RELIEF: dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for stay is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff Anne Heiting (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Rocket Mortgage, LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 alleging a cause of action for Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631.)

            The complaint alleges as follows. Defendant is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Defendant entered into agreements with salesforce.com (“SalesForce”) to embed code into Defendant’s website’s chat function. Once the chat occurs, SalesForce uses digital surveilance tools to collect personal data and monitor user behavior. SalesForce will also disclose sensitive and personal information to third parties. Defendant knowingly allowed this and failed to obtain user consent for this invasive behavior.

            On February 23, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to enlarge the time for Defendant to file a response to the Complaint to April 2, 2024. Defendant did not file a responsive pleading.

            On April 2, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant replied.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Pursuant to CCP section 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on or before the last day to plead in response to the complaint or within such further time as the Court may allow for good cause. When a defendant challenges jurisdiction by a motion to quash, “the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Aquila, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 148 Cal. App. 4th 556, 568 (2007). “The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts. It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.” In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal. App. 4th 100, 110 (2005) (citations omitted). Mere vague assertions of facts are not enough, but instead the plaintiff must offer “specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff cannot rely on “allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP, 5 Cal. App. 5th 215, 222 (2016)

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff has failed in their burden to present evidence to support a finding that California courts have jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiff has presented no evidence to meet their burden.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for stay is DENIED.

            The Court orders the Complaint filed by Anne Heiting dismissed without prejudice.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             June 10, 2024                          __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court