Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 22AHCV01251, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01251, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from alleged childhood sexual assault perpetrated in about 1983-1984 by a swim coach (“Perpetrator”) at co-defendant Boys & Girls Club of Pasadena (“Pasadena Club”) when plaintiff C.B. (“Plaintiff”) was about 10 years old. Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of America (“BGCA”) (sued and served as Doe 1) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. BGCA argues that it is a foreign entity that does not have the requisite “minimum contacts” with California to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an opposition brief and evidentiary objections on July 24, 2024. BGCA filed evidentiary objections, another request for judicial notice, and a reply brief on July 29, 2024.

BGCA requests that the Court take judicial notice of (a) the proof of service of summons and complaint in this Action; (b) the BGCA Charter Chapter 29 section 706, codified at 36 U.S.C § 31101 et seq.; (c) the 1978 Constitution and Membership Requirements of BCGA; (d) an excerpt from the website of co-defendant Boys & Girls Club of Pasadena (“Pasadena Club”) listing its board of directors; (e) Pasadena Club’s filings with the California Secretary of State; (f) Pasadena Club’s Form 990 filings from 2001 to 2023; (g) a court order in the case captioned J.L. v. Boys and Girls Clubs of America, et al. (Case No. 56-2022-00567552-CU-PO-VTA); (h) a copy of BGCA’s corporate documents indicating its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Court judicially notices Exhibit A and Exhibit G pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records). The Court judicially notices Exhibits B and C pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(a) (statutory law of the United States). (See Regents of Univ. of California v. City of Santa Monica (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 130, 135.) Exhibits E1, E2, F, and H are judicially noticed pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c) (official acts) and 452(h) (facts and propositions not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy). The request to judicially notice Exhibit D is DENIED.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of a minute order dated March 9, 2023, issued in A.B. v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, et al. (Case No. 22STCV22849), pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).

BGCA’s objections to the Affidavit of Brett Ainsworth are SUSTAINED on grounds of relevance. Mr. Ainsworth was never employed by BGCA and his experience is limited to being employed at a non-defendant club in 2014-2018, whereas Plaintiff’s alleged abuse occurred in 1983-1984. BGCA’s objections to a news article cited multiple times in Plaintiff’s opposition brief are SUSTAINED on grounds of relevance and hearsay.

BGCA’s further request for judicial notice of evidence submitted in support of its reply brief is GRANTED as to Exhibit J (official acts) and Exhibits K, L, M and N (court records).

When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (State of Oregon v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) “Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are ‘substantial . . . continuous and systematic.’ [Citations.] In such a case, ‘it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relation to the forum.’ [Citation.] 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.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445.) If a nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction may be established where the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of a defendant’s contacts with the forum. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 126-127.)

BGCA is a federally chartered corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and incorporated and domiciled in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff argues that BGCA is subject to general jurisdiction in California under the representative services doctrine because it can only perform its functions through its member organizations, such as those in California (like the Pasadena Club). The representative services doctrine is a “species of agency” which permits the assertion of general jurisdiction over a principal based on the contacts of a local agent. (See Young v. Daimler AG (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 855, 866.) It has been applied where a parent and subsidiary have divided the assets of a business (owned by the parent) from the labor necessary to operate it (provided by the subsidiary). (See, e.g., Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 542-543.)

Here, there is no evidence that Pasadena Club is a subsidiary or agent of BGCA or that BGCA would be performing any functions of a local club if Pasadena Club did not exist. Plaintiff’s evidence consists of the Affidavit of Brett Ainsworth and a news article and the Court sustains BGCA’s objections to such evidence. Plaintiff also provides a link to BGCA’s website as proof that that BGCA operates a regional service center in Los Angeles, but the website only identifies a service center in Atlanta, Georgia. Therefore, Plaintiff has provided no basis for asserting general jurisdiction.

“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; [ie.] 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 is determined under a three-part test: (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.” (Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054.) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 417 U.S. 462, 476-477.)

Plaintiff relies primarily on the Affidavit of Brett Ainsworth to argue that BGCA purposefully availed itself of California’s laws and benefits by “establishing, overseeing, directing, controlling, and setting standards for its 115 California clubs, including the Pasadena Club where Plaintiff was sexually assaulted.” (Opp., p. 5.) As stated above, however, the Court sustains the objections to the affidavit. Therefore, the remaining evidence that Plaintiff relies on is BGCA’s 1978 Constitution. BGCA’s Constitution describes “Area Councils” that are established by the “National Board of Directors.” (Def.’s RJN, Ex. 3, p. 8.) Each Area Council has an “Executive Secretary” who is appointed by the President of BGCA and serves as the BGCA’s representative. (Ibid.) “The Executive Secretary’s duties shall be: (a) to assist in planning the activities of the Area Council; (b) to act as a liaison officer between the Area Council and staff of the Corporation; (c) to keep minutes of Area Council meetings and supply copies thereof to the Chairman of and the Member Organizations represented on the Area Council as well as to the [BGCA]’S Divisional Directors, Regional Director and Director of Field Services.” (Ibid.)

The cited excerpt of BGCA’s Constitution does not show that BGCA took any actions directed specifically towards California. Also, although Plaintiff refers to BGCA’s governing documents to claim that BGCA “has always had the ability to control, enforce, and implement club standards and reasonable child safety measures for the prevention of sexual abuse of its members at its clubs”, Plaintiff ignores BGCA’s “Requirements for Membership” which state that the “local governing body” such as Pasadena Club (and not BGCA) “shall have the authority . . . to hire and discharge employees and prescribe their duties.” (Ex. C, p. 10.)

In sum, neither BGCA’s national activities nor its alleged inaction in Atlanta, Georgia (where it is headquartered) demonstrate purposeful availment of California. (See Aldrich v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (N.D. Cal. 2020) 484 F. Supp. 3d 779, 795; Doe 1 v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (N.D. Cal. 2023) 2023 WL 105096, at *10.) Accordingly, there is no basis for exercising specific jurisdiction over BGCA.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court