Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01248478, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling
Specially Appearing Defendants’ (Jeffrey Sladkus and The Sladkus Law Group) Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Motion), filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 39, is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, states, “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 of Civil Procedure section 418.10 states in part, “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: [¶] (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. [¶] (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. [¶] (3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8.”
“Personal jurisdiction may be general (all purpose) or specific. The standard for general jurisdiction is considerably more stringent than that for specific jurisdiction.[Citation.] A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when it has substantial, continuous and systematic contacts in the forum state, i.e., its contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of a physical presence in the state. [Citations.] In assessing a defendant's contacts with the forum for purposes of general jurisdiction, we look at the contacts as they existed from the time the alleged conduct occurred to the time of service of summons. [Citation.] For a corporation, its domicile, place of incorporation, and/or principal place of business within a state constitute the paradigm bases for establishing general jurisdiction. [Citation.] A defendant corporation's substantial sales in a state are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction, as the general jurisdiction analysis turns on the nature of the defendant's continuous corporate operations within a state. [Citation.]” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LB (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 222-223; Italics in Strasner.) “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. [Citation.] 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. [Citation.] The plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 222.)
Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062 (Snowney), states, “Under the minimum contacts test, ‘[p]ersonal jurisdiction may be either general or specific.’ [Citation.] Because plaintiff does not claim general jurisdiction, we only consider whether specific jurisdiction exists here. [¶] ‘When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the “ ‘relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ ” [Citations.] A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) “the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits” [citation]; (2) “the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” [the] defendant's contacts with the forum’ ” [citations]; and (3) “ ‘the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice’ ” ’ ” (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 447, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899, 926 P.2d 1085, quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472–473, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 [ (Burger King ) ].)’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘When a defendant moves to quash service of process’ for lack of specific jurisdiction, ‘the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.’ [Citation.] ‘If the plaintiff meets this initial burden, then the defendant has the burden of demonstrating “that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” ’ [Citations.] Where, as here, ‘ “no conflict in the evidence exists . . . the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law and the reviewing court engages in an independent review of the record.” ’ [Citation.]” Applying these standards to the facts of this case, we conclude that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over defendants.” “Thus, purposeful availment occurs where a nonresident defendant ‘ “purposefully direct[s]” [its] activities at residents of the forum’ (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174), ‘ “purposefully derive[s] benefit” from’ its activities in the forum (id. at p. 473, 105 S.Ct. 2174), ‘create[s] a “substantial connection” with the forum’ (id. at p. 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174), ‘ “deliberately” has engaged in significant activities within’ the forum (id. at pp. 475–476, 105 S.Ct. 2174), or ‘has created ‘continuing obligations’ between [itself] and residents of the forum’ (id. at p. 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174). By limiting the scope of a forum’s jurisdiction in this manner, the ‘ “purposeful availment” requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 1063.)
Here, Plaintiff (Orange Coast Title Company of Southern California) burden of demonstrating facts to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over the Specially Appearing Defendants. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Specially Appearing Defendants Jeffrey Sladkus and the Sladkus Law Group’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Opposition), filed on 8-3-22 under ROA No. 131, relies on Specially Appearing Defendant—Sladkus Law Group’s (SLG) response to Special Interrogatory (SI) No. 8 as supporting jurisdiction over Specially Appearing Defendants. SI No. 8 states, “Identify all COMMUNICATIOS RELATING TO the outgoing payment of [all but $15,000 of] the $927,700.60 proceeds from YOU to RAMFA.” (Katz Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 1.) SLG responded to SI No. 8 by stating, in part, “In addition, Jeffrey B. Sladkus called OCTCSC twice on February 16, 2022, to confirm they were the source of the incoming wire in the amount of $927,700.60. In the first call, which lasted approximately sixteen minutes, Sladkus spoke with two or three OCTCSC employees, who each told him that OCTCSC was very busy and that someone would call him back. When there was no call back, Sladkus called again, but was routed to a call tree and eventually hung up after being unable to speak with a human . . . .” (Katz Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 1.) The Opposition does not explain whether SLG’s response to SI No. 8 supports general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction or both. For example, the Opposition does not address the three elements necessary to support specific jurisdiction.
First, as to general jurisdiction, two phone calls on the same day is insufficient to demonstrate substantial, continuous and systematic contacts with California. Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to show that Specially Appearing Defendants contact with California were wide-ranging based on two phone calls.
Second, as to personal jurisdiction, Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1261-1262 (Shisler), states, “Citing Hall v. LaRonde (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1344, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 399, plaintiff claims that defendant's use of mail, e-mail, or telephone to negotiate the purchase of the vehicle creates the necessary minimum contacts. Hall is distinguishable. There the parties, a New York defendant and a California plaintiff, had a continuing relationship. That relationship included the ongoing payment of royalties by the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no evidence of any such relationship in this case. Although there were an unknown number of communications between the parties in this case, there is no evidence that this was anything other than a one-time transaction. Further, there is no evidence that defendant ever expressly reached out to California in search of this or any other business opportunity. After the vehicle left defendant's business in Florida, defendant's only further contact with plaintiff concerned the dissatisfaction that led to the instant lawsuit. There was no ongoing business relationship. [¶] We conclude that the evidence does not establish the ‘purposeful availment’ prong of the test for specific jurisdiction. It follows that plaintiff did not carry his burden and the motion to quash was properly granted.”
Calder v. Jones (1994) 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (Calder), states, “Petitioners' analogy does not wash. Whatever the status of their hypothetical welder, petitioners are not charged with mere untargeted negligence. Rather, their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. Petitioner South wrote and petitioner Calder edited an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent. And they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation. Under the circumstances, petitioners must ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into court there” to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article. [Citations.]. An individual injured in California need not go to Florida to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in Florida, knowingly cause the injury in California.”
Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 23-24 (Burdick), states, “Walden is not a defamation case, and the Supreme Court made clear that commission of intentional torts via the Internet presented some ‘very different questions’ which it left ‘for another day.’ [Citation.] Nonetheless, Walden 's essential teachings and its interpretation of Calder directly apply to this case. Walden teaches that the correct jurisdictional analysis focuses on (1) the defendant's contacts with the forum, not with the plaintiff, and (2) whether those contacts create ‘ “ ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation’ ” ’necessary to satisfy due process. [Citation.] And, ‘[t]he proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.’ [Citation.]”
Unlike Calder, the Complaint, filed on 3-4-22 under ROA No. 2, does not contain a cause of action for defamation. Here, SLG’s two phone calls do not connect the Specially Appearing Defendants to California in a meaningful way. Similar to Shisler, SLG’s two phone calls on 2-16-22 to ask about the wire transfer, without more is insufficient o establish the purposeful availment prong necessary to support specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Plaintiff and Specially Appearing Defendants had an ongoing business relationship or that Specially Appearing Defendants reached out to California for other business opportunities. Although Plaintiff’s injury may have occurred in California, Plaintiff’s evidence of two phone calls on 2-16-22 to verify that Plaintiff was the source of the transfer, Plaintiff’s evidence does not show that Specially Appearing Defendants expressly aimed or targeted their conduct at California.
Based on the above, the court finds that Plaintiff has not carried its burden of demonstrating general or personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the court GRANTS Specially Appearing Defendants’ (Jeffrey Sladkus and The Sladkus Law Group) Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 39.
Specially Appearing Defendants are to give notice.